Bin Laden's role?

[Gene Steinberg]

I just wanna know why Laura Bush calls her husband "Bushy!" No, the devil made me do that.

 

[fitzbew88]

Hmmm, it looks like Mr. fitzbew88 is a coincidence theorist who believes the government line that OBL is the boogie-man behind the "turrists".

I believe OBL is the boogie-man behind the terrorists because he says he is, and I have no compelling reason to believe he is NOT.

The CIA, a model of credibility? Since when? The agency that ran The School of the Americas, a known college of death squad du jour? Suurre...

The French didn't have to smear the CIA, people here know that!

And yeah, OBL was wanted long before this "coincidence" of 9/11, the CIA could've picked him off at any time.

But he was a handy "tool" to have for later jobs.

Of course I would not contest that the CIA lies/lied/will lie in the future. But I have no reason to believe that they ALWAYS lie. In fact, if a CIA denial was the ONLY reason I had to consider that this Dubai Hospital story is insane, I would not be quite so confident.

Don't look at the actions of the intelligence community for inspiration on ethics and high moral standards. Nations only care about interests.

 

[CapnG]

Do you still happen to have the links to the videos? Or whatever the source is.

Not handy but I'm sure a Google or Youtube search will bear fruit. Try searching for "Bin Laden comparison" or something similar.

 

[fitzbew88]

"Thus far, it has ALL turned out to be untrue or nonsensical or flies in the face of what I can see with my own eyes."

And therein lies the problem. You're asking me to outline for you why I think what I think. And I'm telling you that what I'd outline you've already read before and come to the above conclusion--so what is the point of typing it out?

I'm not going to "win you over." Most likely I don't have any evidence you will find compelling and we will argue and argue and argue and it will amount to nothing. So I'm going to save us both the finger power and not bother. It's not like this is 2002 or 2003. It's 2008. Whatever side you fall on with this issue, I think you/I are there to stay until some new "winning" evidence is introduced that tips the scales.

Jeremy,

I believe that if you had a compelling reason to believe this outrageous allegation, you would share it.

Again, you are acting as if you don't really have a good reason to believe that this is true. It seems like you are just hoping that it is true. If you cannot convince even an open-minded person like me --- it must not be very compelling.

Perhaps you should reconsider this belief; have the reasons you took this posture originally withstood the test of time?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

"I don't think anyone has come to any possible answers to my inquiry as to why the Bush admin would be involved in having Bin Laden, or fakes make threats against their admin."

So that we will be scared and Bush can look tough retorting and we'll all rally around our president who is the opposite of the evil guy making threats against him.

Thanks. I can entertain that notion to an extent, except for some of it is problematic for me. I'll give it more thought however and watch your vids soon.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I just wanna know why Laura Bush calls her husband "Bushy!" No, the devil made me do that.

Gene, hogtie David and do a 9/11 show some day. Not that I wouldn't want to hear him (I do) but he doesn't seem to want to do a show on it Or are you the same? Anyway, I think it would be better than the other shows dealing with it. No offense to Jeremy, since I haven't listened to any of his 9/11 shows yet. I will soon though.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Not handy but I'm sure a Google or Youtube search will bear fruit. Try searching for "Bin Laden comparison" or something similar.

I'll try and find it later. Just came by for a moment. Give me a day or two.

 

[fitzbew88]

Here's a very low rez version but it's all I could find on a cursoury search:

Now if you watch the videos from which the frames are taken, the differences become glaring but the obvious differences in nose length and breadth are hilighted here. The man on the left has a cranium which would be classified in the mesocephalic range whereas the man on the right is more dolichocephalic (ie longer). That's just two points that never change with age or weight. These are different men.

The only video I can find that looks "right" in terms of OBL's demeanor (sitting around talking) and in terms of the color of the wall behind him is the "famous" confession tape from November 2001.

Here's the full video: 9:25 video

No matter what analysis of any particular frame might suggest, the video in total leaves no doubt in my mind at all that the "person of interest" is the same OBL that we have grown to know.

As a matter of fact, I can't find any frame in the video that matches the left side of the compared images.

If the November 2001 is not the right video, then of course I withdraw this. But I would appreciate being pointed to the right one.

Some of the so-called analyses I stumbled across while researching this seemed to be taking a frame or two out of a very long video and then claiming a non-match --- while ignoring 99% of the video that looks like run-of-the-mill OBL!

 

[valiens]

Jeremy,

I believe that if you had a compelling reason to believe this outrageous allegation, you would share it.

Again, you are acting as if you don't really have a good reason to believe that this is true. It seems like you are just hoping that it is true. If you cannot convince even an open-minded person like me --- it must not be very compelling.

Perhaps you should reconsider this belief; have the reasons you took this posture originally withstood the test of time?

I think if you've looked at the evidence and concluded it's crap you're not open-minded, so that's disagreement number one.

But I should add that before when I cited "The Grand Chessboard" and PNAC (and I forgot Operation Northwoods) I should have been clearer what I meant: I meant that I DO find the evidence compelling but I could not believe that any administration, even Bushco, would do something like that to its own citizens until I read those three things. That sealed the deal: They would do that to us and since all of the evidence I find compelling skews that way, including the fact that the only people to benefit from the aftermath are the Bushites, they did do that to us.

I cited the meeting at the hospital to illustrate why I think, of the choices, it being a setup the way I described seems the most plausible explanation. You want other less controversial facts to back it up?--Again, this is where we hit a wall. I think you have read everything I have read and come to a different conclusion. Shall I list all of them for you to strike down one-by-one as you tell me you're open-minded and rational without presenting your open-minded rational thesis for me to strike down?

That you reiterate you're open-minded is silly. You're not open-minded and neither am I. You already said you drew your conclusion that's it's all garbage. I've drawn the conclusion that you'd have to be a complete fool and/or Paul Kimball to believe the administration's version of events. (It's a joke, Paul! Leave me alone!)

I was open-minded at the beginning. I didn't blindly believe Bushco did it. I originally figured we finally pissed off the wrong folks for too long and this was retaliation for decades of oppressive policy. Then after reviewing the data contradicting the official story and seeing the silliness of it (Really?--They found the passports of the criminals in the wreckage? Really?--Some of the hijackers were misidentified and are still alive but we're supposed to overlook that? Really?--The Pentagon plane did a neat 180 and slammed into the side of the building under construction with the least amount of people in it? Really?--They had no plan for this? And yet--Really? There were training exercises going on as we were being attacked that mimicked the attack thus causing confusion that the attacks were part of the drill? Really?--They destroyed the FAA tapes and chucked 'em into three separate canisters by accident? ... and so on and so forth--you know, all of the not-at-all-compelling facts like those) -- After seeing those lil' issues, I thought, Okay. The Bushies let it happen but they didn't orchestrate it.

Then, like I said, I caved into YES THEY ORCHESTRATED IT after those 2 documents and book proposed we do exactly what we did to achieve exactly what we achieved. Okay, Operation Northwoods didn't propose that but it did show that we absolutely would have done similar things to Cuba if MacNamara didn't kill the proposal before it got to Kennedy.

 

[CapnG]

Unfortunately I am not a wizard able to summon video at will. I remember seeing a video some years ago which ran the two videos of the images shown in the freeze frame side by side and I concluded that these were different men, a conclusion I still hold today for reasons I've already explained.

Some of the so-called analyses I stumbled across while researching this seemed to be taking a frame or two out of a very long video and then claiming a non-match --- while ignoring 99% of the video that looks like run-of-the-mill OBL!

Believe what you please. Leaders throughout history have made use of "doubles" to disuade rumours or hold off assination attempts. I see no reason why OBL wouldn't do the same if it suited him, espescially given the "they all look alike to me" attitude of the majority of people in the west. Whether or not that has anything to do with the overall 9/11 conspiracy, the CIA or anything else is not my point, I'm just saying they're different people.

 

[fitzbew88]

Unfortunately I am not a wizard able to summon video at will. I remember seeing a video some years ago which ran the two videos of the images shown in the freeze frame side by side and I concluded that these were different men, a conclusion I still hold today for reasons I've already explained.

Ok, well if you stumble across that please share it.

We really need to look at the video as a whole.

There have only been a few --- if you saw this comparison a few years ago, then that narrows it down to only a few since 9/11.

In the meantime, I don't see any compelling reason to believe any of the videos are faked. I mean, I can't be sure the image on the left side of your comparison even comes from one of the OBL videos or even rule out that it has been manipulated.

 

[fitzbew88]

I think if you've looked at the evidence and concluded it's crap you're not open-minded, so that's disagreement number one.

Perhaps we also disagree on what "open-minded" means. If I honestly consider an idea (no matter how radical!) then I consider myself open-minded. If I find the evidence backing up the idea unconvincing, it doesn't mean I'm close-minded.

Now, if I am unwilling to even consider a radical idea, then yes I am close-minded.

But I should add that before when I cited "The Grand Chessboard" and PNAC (and I forgot Operation Northwoods) I should have been clearer what I meant: I meant that I DO find the evidence compelling but I could not believe that any administration, even Bushco, would do something like that to its own citizens until I read those three things. That sealed the deal: They would do that to us and since all of the evidence I find compelling skews that way, including the fact that the only people to benefit from the aftermath are the Bushites, they did do that to us.

And thank you again for not sharing any of the evidence.

I cited the meeting at the hospital to illustrate why I think, of the choices, it being a setup the way I described seems the most plausible explanation. You want other less controversial facts to back it up?--Again, this is where we hit a wall.

I don't understand what you mean here.

The hospital meeting didn't happen, at least I can't find any reason to believe it did. The hospital denies it, all of the hijackers were already in the U.S. (some since January 2000) and the all the documented activity within the administration regarding OBL during that summer was focused on how to kill him. The Cole bombing had only been a few months earlier...

In fact, OBL's followers have reported that OBL was actually hiding for much of July 2001 because he thought the attacks were imminent. (Remember these attacks were conceived in 1982, at least according to OBL.) He had endured another false alarm in May. The hijackers were simply not advancing at the pace he desired.

The CIA was not having friendly meetings with OBL in July of 2001. They wanted him dead and were just arguing with the Pentagon and other services about how to do it.

I think you have read everything I have read and come to a different conclusion. Shall I list all of them for you to strike down one-by-one as you tell me you're open-minded and rational without presenting your open-minded rational thesis for me to strike down?

Here's my thesis: OBL and his organization planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Strike away.

That you reiterate you're open-minded is silly. You're not open-minded and neither am I.

Well, what I am trying to say to you is: I will be open-minded and don't be afraid to share your reasons for believing that this outrageous assertion is true: that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

You already said you drew your conclusion that's it's all garbage.

Wait! I believe the hospital meeting is garbage. You haven't really shared anything else that I can say is garbage. (I haven't watched the videos.)

I've drawn the conclusion that you'd have to be a complete fool and/or Paul Kimball to believe the administration's version of events. (It's a joke, Paul! Leave me alone!)

Oh, there is PLENTY to criticize as far as the Administration is concerned regarding this terrible tragedy. But all I have seen so far is blunders --- not conspiracies or evidence of any kind've a "set up".

...Then after reviewing the data contradicting the official story and seeing the silliness of it (Really?--They found the passports of the criminals in the wreckage?

Why do you believe they found the passports? And what would that mean if they did? That since they weren't destroyed, there were no planes? Or that the passports were "planted" in the WTC debris? Did they find other documents that had been on the plane? If they found a copy of Sky Mall, what would that mean?

Some of the hijackers were misidentified and are still alive but we're supposed to overlook that?

Dude, everybody on those planes is dead. The BBC erroneously reported that one of the "alleged" hijackers was found alive but they later corrected that. It was a mistake on their part.

The Pentagon plane did a neat 180 and slammed into the side of the building under construction with the least amount of people in it?

I recall a graphic floating around that seemed to suggest something like this, but when I researched it I realized that the graphic was showing the strike on the wrong side. I guess I would suggest that you double-check this and see if you've been misled.

They had no plan for this?

I know that some consideration for an attack like this had been bandied about in government circles. But it is true that the mechanism for dealing with "planes as missiles" was not in place.

I'm not sure if we can really draw any conclusions from the presence or absence of plans, though.

There were training exercises going on as we were being attacked that mimicked the attack thus causing confusion that the attacks were part of the drill?

Well training excercises are going on all the time somewhere in the U.S.

I'd be very interested in any documentation you can provide for "exercises" that "mimicked the attack" that day.

Even if true, though, wouldn't that be an argument against a conspiracy?

They destroyed the FAA tapes and chucked 'em into three separate canisters by accident?

Who is "they" and what tapes? Radar tapes? Audio tapes?

After seeing those lil' issues, I thought, Okay. The Bushies let it happen but they didn't orchestrate it.

So, despite all those issues, you still didn't buy into the conspiracy theory...or wait...what do you mean by "let it happen"? Because of mismanagement (possible) or deliberately "let it happen" (accessory before/during/after the fact.)?

Then, like I said, I caved into YES THEY ORCHESTRATED IT after those 2 documents and book proposed we do exactly what we did to achieve exactly what we achieved. Okay, Operation Northwoods didn't propose that but it did show that we absolutely would have done similar things to Cuba if MacNamara didn't kill the proposal before it got to Kennedy.

Jeremy, I don't think it wise to conclude that the Clinton Administration engineered 9/11 because someone once -- 45+ years ago --- merely considered doing something nasty to Cuba. That seems kinda capricious to me.

 

[valiens]

Wait! I believe the hospital meeting is garbage. You haven't really shared anything else that I can say is garbage. (I haven't watched the videos.)

Gee, that's funny because a few posts back, when it was convenient for you to do so, you told me that didn't help my case at all. And your case is what again? Right. bin laden did it. The end. Great, well that settles it then. That's completely logical, rational, and that fits the picture. I guess you don't need to provide any evidence for it it's just plain to see.

Oh that's right he said he did it. Except even that isn't accurate. At first, he said he didn't. Changed his story. FLIIIIP FLOOOOOP!

In any event, I'm just repeating myself AGAIN. You seem to be familiar with the evidence and so there's no need to trot it out. What part of that does not make sense to you? I honestly don't get why you keep asking me for evidence when you already know what I'm going to say. I would only be telling you what you already know and don't believe. That's not a diversion, that's the truth!

My days of arguing 9/11 to convince anyone are behind me. Ultimately, at this point in history, it doesn't matter if Bushco set it up or terrorists did it on their own. Bush has most certainly caught up with and surpassed those malicious acts and so we're splitting hairs. I don't care what you think about that or me. The end.

Oddly enough I just now finished watching "V For Vendetta" for the first time. A comic book movie gets it. Go figure.

 

[fitzbew88]

It's an 8-parter. I'm in one of 'em.

I watched these two and didn't see anything interesting at all. In fairness, though, I didn't understand some of it.

I mean, I didn't see anything that suggested a conspiracy.

I would like to hear more about the securities trading investigation, but I think this is just an unfounded rumor. The 9/11 report (page 171-2) says that the SEC, FBI, and other organizations have found no evidence of anyone profiting from 9/11 via security transactions. (Is there a reason to believe the report is lying?)

One of the 9/11 family members seemed to be implying something nefarious happened because the Secret Service didn't sweep GWB out of the elementary school he was visiting in Florida as soon as the attack became known. Mind you, they did take him to AF1 just not as fast as the family member would like.

Concern was expressed about the Bush administration "protecting" the bin Laden family from FBI investigation. But even if true (no evidence is forthcoming), so what? This is just normal oil politics --- no evidence of a conspiracy.

There was a blurb about the State Department sending money to the Taliban just prior to 9/11. Yes, this was a "reward" for reducing opium trade. So what? This was public knowledge, and I don't see any way for it to fit into a "conspiracy".

Again and again it seems like folks have decided that 9/11 was faked or such and then looked around for reasons to believe it. But as far as I can see, there is no reason to believe it.

 

[valiens]

Wait maybe I'm wrong. maybe you don't know all the evidence... The tapes being destroyed I'm referring to are these:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5101

And I found this while looking for it, which is kinda handy:

http://judicial-inc.biz/Betty_Ong.htm

Good night.

 

[fitzbew88]

Wait! I believe the hospital meeting is garbage. You haven't really shared anything else that I can say is garbage. (I haven't watched the videos.)

Gee, that's funny because a few posts back, when it was convenient for you to do so, you told me that didn't help my case at all.

No, actually I was talking about the affiliations you were describing. (Not really the hospital story.) Sorry for not being clearer.

And your case is what again? Right. bin laden did it. The end. Great, well that settles it then. That's completely logical, rational, and that fits the picture. I guess you don't need to provide any evidence for it it's just plain to see.

I'm willing to try to prove it. But it would be odd --- virtually the whole universe believes bin Laden did it. Law enforcement agencies, his biographers, his published videos and written statements --- I'd say there's overwhelming evidence. You see, the assertion that OBL did it is not an outrageous claim. It's based on decades of history. I have real *reasons* for believing he did it. It's not something that I would just *like* to be true.

Oh that's right he said he did it. Except even that isn't accurate. At first, he said he didn't. Changed his story. FLIIIIP FLOOOOOP!

Yes, shortly after 9/11 he issued a recording sort've denying responsibility. But this was likely a lie intended to reinforce Taliban support. Alas, that didn't work out for him.

In any event, I'm just repeating myself AGAIN. You seem to be familiar with the evidence and so there's no need to trot it out. What part of that does not make sense to you? I honestly don't get why you keep asking me for evidence when you already know what I'm going to say. I would only be telling you what you already know and don't believe. That's not a diversion, that's the truth!

Now, I'm not trying to upset you but you haven't given me one shred of evidence. Not one fact, not one bit of testimony from a responsible person, --- nothing. You don't seem to have a reason to believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government. It seems to be something that you want to believe.

My days of arguing 9/11 to convince anyone are behind me. Ultimately, at this point in history, it doesn't matter if Bushco set it up or terrorists did it on their own. Bush has most certainly caught up with and surpassed those malicious acts and so we're splitting hairs. I don't care what you think about that or me. The end.

If you think that members of the U.S. government were actively complicit in 9/11 (not just blunders) then you are morally bound to march down to your local U.S. attorney and start the process of prosecution. Be advised though, that they are much more "demanding" when it comes to evidence than me.

Now, if you can't prove it, you may want to consider not propagating such a heinous and hurtful theory.

Oddly enough I just now finished watching "V For Vendetta" for the first time. A comic book movie gets it. Go figure.

Maybe you are watching too much of this stuff.

 

[fitzbew88]

Wait maybe I'm wrong. maybe you don't know all the evidence... The tapes being destroyed I'm referring to are these:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5101

Unfortunately, I don't see anything weird in this. These were audio tapes made by a set of air traffic controllers as they recounted what happened that morning.

A supervisor says he destroyed them because he though FAA policy required all such documentation to be in writing.

This just looks like a blunder. It would be more suspicious if we were talking about radar or audio tapes. What would they be trying to cover up?

And I found this while looking for it, which is kinda handy:

http://judicial-inc.biz/Betty_Ong.htm

I'm not sure what the point of this last link is. Is it trying to make the case that since there were confusing and contradictory reports that morning, this is evidence that the U.S. government staged 9/11? Sorry, I don't think this is reasonable.

We are sort've getting kind've "woo woo" now, no longer talking about a "simple" conspiracy directing OBL to perform certain actions. We are now talking about a Vast Government Conspiracy involving the FAA, the FBI, the SEC, the CIA, and on and on. As you can see, the more we discuss such an outrageous assertion (the U.S. gov't was actively complicit in 9/11), the more outrageous the claims have to become to defy the evidence of our own eyes.

But why should we contest OBL's own confessions? His lieutenants have actively defended their actions on 9/11 for years. He declared war on us almost a decade ago in public. If he was innocent, why would he be quiet? If he was dead, why would his followers be quiet?

His history shows a succession of attacks on U.S. interests, that go back into the 90's. The first attack on the WTC was coordinated by one of his followers (although it's not clear they had a personal relationship). 9/11 fits OBL's stated goals, his history, his writings, and his inclinations.

I'm sorry, I still just don't see any reason to believe the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11. This idea almost seems quasi-religious: belive it now, explain it later.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

pieces of the vid can be found here. Sorry, you have to put up with Alex Jones if your sound is on.
http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/osama-bin-laden-releases-yet-another.html

 

[fitzbew88]

pieces of the vid can be found here. Sorry, you have to put up with Alex Jones if your sound is on.
http://undertheradarmedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/osama-bin-laden-releases-yet-another.html

I did turn the volume down so I didn't hear the commentary.

All the video looked like OBL to me. His beard was drastically different in one, but the face looked right.

I do see the point in the Confession Video from which the frames CapnG shared with us came from. Unfortunately, it does seem that the comparison does ignore 99% of the video. Other than those few frames, the rest of the video looks like OBL.

So far, I don't yet see any evidence of "fakery" in the videos.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I did turn the volume down so I didn't hear the commentary.

All the video looked like OBL to me. His beard was drastically different in one, but the face looked right.

I do see the point in the Confession Video from which the frames CapnG shared with us came from. Unfortunately, it does seem that the comparison does ignore 99% of the video. Other than those few frames, the rest of the video looks like OBL.

So far, I don't yet see any evidence of "fakery" in the videos.

I watched the vid you posted, and it passes for OBL to my eyes. A small percent of the footage he looks like a black man for whatever reason.