Bin Laden's role?

[CapnG]

Sigh... Look fitz, the two men in these photos are different men. To me it is PAINFULLY obvious. To you it is an endless matter of debate. No analysis? I've given you nothing BUT CONSISTENT analysis, as your own quoting of me shows and frankly I'm fed up with repeating myself. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't know WHY, okay? I'm just speaking as to WHOM. These are different men yet both are alleged to be OBL. You believe whatever published media you like, I'll stick with what my eyes and training TELL ME. Apparently it doesn't matter how many times I say "the sky is blue" because you'll simply tell me "no it isn't".

 

[fitzbew88]

Sigh... Look fitz, the two men in these photos are different men.

But the Comparison JPEG was probably put together to deliberately deceive you.

Now that we know which video you think is faked, we no longer have to rely on someone who may be testing your gullibility.

What do you think about the stills I provided?

To me it is PAINFULLY obvious. To you it is an endless matter of debate. No analysis? I've given you nothing BUT CONSISTENT analysis, as your own quoting of me shows and frankly I'm fed up with repeating myself.

But any "analysis" you may have already done is moot. The Comparison JPEG does not appear to come from the video you say is faked.

As far as I know, today is the first day you've had real evidence to look at.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't know WHY, okay? I'm just speaking as to WHOM. These are different men yet both are alleged to be OBL. You believe whatever published media you like, I'll stick with what my eyes and training TELL ME. Apparently it doesn't matter how many times I say "the sky is blue" because you'll simply tell me "no it isn't".

All this is just distraction. Let's first reach a consensus on whether the OBL in the video is OBL or not. If we decide it's fake, we can speculate on other matters.

Our previous discussions are sort've irrelevant. Today is the first day we've both been able to look at the same data.

 

[fitzbew88]

...isn't it FAA regulation to notify the air force when a plane's transponder goes off since like the 70's after the hostage crisis?

No, not to my knowledge. Transponders fail occassionally, some planes don't have them, and they are not required in all airspaces.

On 9/11, three of the four planes had their transponders turned off. It turns out, though, that the "root" problem was not the transponders, but the sluggishness of the system that was in place.

And it's not like these were stealth craft, just because their transponders went off they didn't vanish. Okay so there are 4000 other blips on screen... WITH transponders. Are you telling me they have no filters on their systems to track objects with no codes and screen out the rest?

ATC generally has the ability to look for "primary" radar returns (planes with no transponders), but it is not an easy process.

Also, not every radar can look everywhere. The right radar needs to be looking in the right direction.

But in the case of 9/11, all of this transponder/radar stuff was sort've a tertiary issue. (See below.)

Unlikely. They had a vector, they had a procedure, they had the means and the opportunity and still nothing happened. FOUR times in ONE day in less than what, three hours? I'm no George Noory but that stretches waaaaaaaay beyond coincidence OR incompetence for me.

NORAD did not have a vector.

The NORAD/FAA procedures were designed for typical hijackings, and they failed miserably in this case.

NORAD/FAA did have the means to intercept the airliners with fighters, but the system was unable to respond rapidly enough to make this happen.

NORAD never had a real opportunity to intervene on 9/11.

American Flight 11 - Departing Boston
8:14am - Hijacking began
8:25am - FAA determined the plane had been hijacked.
8:38am - NORAD was notified.
8:46am - 2 jets were scrambled from Massachussets (the closest "on alert"). But the AF didn't know where to send them. So they circled for six minutes.
8:46am - Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

United Flight 175 - Departing Boston
The same Controller was responsible for this flight as Flight 11. So, he was a bit distracted.

8:42am - Hijacking began (approximately).
8:55am - Controller determined that the aircraft was hijacked.
9:01am - NORAD was notified that this plane was hijacked. The two jets from Massachussets were still en route to the New York area.
9:03am - Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

American Flight 77 - Departing Dulles
8:51am - Hijacking began.
9:00am - ATC in Indianopolis realized there was a problem, but believed the plane had crashed. (They know nothing of the WTC events.)
9:20am - ATC-Indianopolis learned of the WTC events and the other hijackings. They began looking for the plane, but didn't find it until it was only about 40 miles from the Pentagon.
9:37am - Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. NORAD was never even notified about this hijacking. Langley AFB (near DC) had scrambled two jets at 9:30am but mistakenly sent them EAST.

United Flight 93 - Departing Newark
9:28am - Hijacking began.
9:32am - FAA determined this plane had been hijacked.
10:03am - Flight 93 crashed.
10:07am - NORAD was notified about this hijacking.

So, as you can see there is no suggestion of any kind've NORAD "stand down".

The 9/11 report notes that it was once suggested that NORAD not keep any aircraft on alert. As it was, on 9/11 there were only 14 aircraft on alert in the entire U.S.

 

[cottonzway]

I just don't understand why either fitz is interested in debating this or anyone is interested debating it with him. I would figure by now people have their views made up and it would either be boring/frustrating to talk about the issue still.

I'm not saying talking about the issue in general, but with someone who you've had a long debate with and it's clear on your own views as well as theirs.

 

[fitzbew88]

I just don't understand why either fitz is interested in debating this or anyone is interested debating it with him. I would figure by now people have their views made up and it would either be boring/frustrating to talk about the issue still.

I'm interested to know if any of the OBL videos are fake. CapnG is very certain a video is fake, but I just learned yesterday or today which video he thinks is faked.

So, new information has come up. I have to process it.

I need to find out for myself, see it with my own two eyes.

I'm not saying talking about the issue in general, but with someone who you've had a long debate with and it's clear on your own views as well as theirs.

New information has come up; it must be processed. If one of the videos is faked, I want to know it. If it turns out that there is no good reason to believe a video is faked, then that's fine too. CapnG would not be the first victim of hoaxers.

Knowing for sure *which* video he believes is faked totally changes the conversation.

This is directly related to allegations of mass murder against my government. I don't think it's a mistake to treat it seriously.

 

[Experiencer7]

This question is I suppose off topic. But I think it is worth asking. If there are terrorist cells operating within the continental united states., why haven't they bombed something. How many miles of unguarded rail lines are there in this country?, how many packed stadiums?, water supplies etc... Far be it for me to suggest a potential target. But other than that half assed anthrax attack and a couple of airline scares what the fuck has happened? I have nothing but respect for the job our soldiers are doing over there. I am similarly respectful of our FBI and all the law enforcement agencies. But they are human. I really have to wonder., why is there no blood on our soil? With the obvious exception of those lives lost on 911.

 

[CapnG]

But the Comparison JPEG was probably put together to deliberately deceive you.

Now that we know which video you think is faked, we no longer have to rely on someone who may be testing your gullibility.

What do you think about the stills I provided?

This is the very last thing I'm going to say about this because I'm so very thoroughly done on this point. Why someone would make a fake version of an allegedly real tape depicting a man who (to my eyes) is clearly NOT OBL is beyond me. The man on the left side of the pic I posted is not OBL, he's the guy on the right. He's also the guy in the pics you posted. That only leaves the remaining questions a) who is the guy on the left side of my picture and b) why would someone tell us that he's OBL when he's not? Answer- I don't know. I've never known and it's never been my contention to know. I have theories but they are just spitballing. On this issue, on this ONE issue I have only ever made one statement with absolute certainty: they're different men. DONE.

As to the timelines for the crashes, it's a joke. Even if the first two get a free pass because of their shock value, there's no way in hell I can accept that the last two would not have been intercepted. Half an hour to notify NORAD? My ass! And don't tell me you swallow this:

9:00am - ATC in Indianopolis realized there was a problem, but believed the plane had crashed. (They know nothing of the WTC events.)

Really? It's on every tv set in the world happening LIVE and they know NOTHING? C'mon fitz, even by your excessively scrutinized standards that's gotta ring false.

 

[fitzbew88]

Why someone would make a fake version of an allegedly real tape depicting a man who (to my eyes) is clearly NOT OBL is beyond me.

I think you mean (assuming we are not disconnecting somehow): "Why would someone make a fake video still of an allegedly real tape depicting a man who is clearly NOT OBL is beyond me."

It could be used as a tool to bring more people into the conspiracy camp to sell more books. Or to promote a radio show. Or to drive web traffic. It could be done by OBL supporters who want to cast doubt on the video. It could be done just for fun.

Such perpetrators might be counting on the fact that there are many people who will simply take the Comparison JPEG at face value, and never go back and try to find the video itself and evaluate it comprehensively.

If we reach a consensus that the Comparison JPEG has been faked, and that the OBL in the video does really seem to be the real OBL then it might be interesting to speculate as to the motive for creating a fake video still. It would be difficult, but possible, to find out where the Comparison JPEG first appeared. That might give us a clue.

The man on the left side of the pic I posted is not OBL, he's the guy on the right.

I agree, the man on the left side of the Comparison JPEG is either someone else entirely (not OBL) or the image has been processed to make it appear to not be OBL.

He's also the guy in the pics you posted.

You mean OBL is the guy in the video stills I posted? Those stills are taken directly from the video that you previously believed was fake. At this point, I have no good reason to believe the man in the video is not OBL.

That only leaves the remaining questions a) who is the guy on the left side of my picture and b) why would someone tell us that he's OBL when he's not? Answer- I don't know.

I've seen some speculation on the internet that it is OBL, but the image in the Comparison JPEG has been compressed vertically to make it look like someone else. I didn't investigate this, but you can test it yourself.

I've never known and it's never been my contention to know. I have theories but they are just spitballing. On this issue, on this ONE issue I have only ever made one statement with absolute certainty: they're different men. DONE.

I agree. The face on the left side of the Comparison JPEG does not look like OBL. However, the Comparison JPEG does not seem to come from the video so it doesn't help me in trying to determine whether the video is faked.

As to the timelines for the crashes, it's a joke. Even if the first two get a free pass because of their shock value, there's no way in hell I can accept that the last two would not have been intercepted. Half an hour to notify NORAD? My ass!

As far as American 77 (the first of the last two), NORAD was NEVER directly notified about the flight. When the flight began to act strangely, the Controller assumed the plane had crashed. At this point (8:56am) they did not know that American 11 had crashed into WTC North (8:46am). NORAD was never officially notified that this jet had been hijacked.

As far as United 93 (the second of the last two), the FAA/HQ was quickly notified that it had been hijacked (9:34am). The issue of military intercept was quickly raised (9:36am), and FAA/HQ told Indianapolis that they were working on it. At 9:49am, the issue of scrambling jets was raised again at FAA/HQ. At 9:53am, the conversation about intercept was continuing. At 10:03am United 93 crashed, and NORAD did not receive a formal notification of the hijacking until 10:07am.

Why did FAA/HQ delay requesting jets? All I can suggest is that the decision to clear the skies of jets came at 9:42am. This was probably causing all kind've havoc at HQ.

But there is nothing here that suggests to me anything untoward happened. Other than bungling.

And don't tell me you swallow this:

9:00am - ATC in Indianopolis realized there was a problem, but believed the plane had crashed. (They know nothing of the WTC events.)

Really? It's on every tv set in the world happening LIVE and they know NOTHING? C'mon fitz, even by your excessively scrutinized standards that's gotta ring false.

The first plane crashed at 8:46am.

CNN went live at 8:49am
ABC went live at 8:51am
CBS went live at 8:52am

So at 9:00am, news of the first plane strike would've been permeating into the universe for 11 minutes. So, I think it's reasonable that a Controller did not yet know what was going on. Assuming that the traffic center is designed to minimize distractions, I doubt a TV was on in the work location.

But even if they had been staring at the TV screen, it would not have necessarily have caused them to assume hijackings were involved; there would not have yet been a reason to connect the two events.

It was only at 8:55am that any part of the FAA suspected that multiple hijackings might be involved.

I don't yet seen anything that makes me suspicious, certainly nothing that suggests a "NORAD stand-down".

The system was just not up to the challenge it faced.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Around the 7:52 mark is where they might have got the suspicious still.

Unfortunately, this vid's quality is only a little better than the Patterson/Gimlin film, and we all know different people see different things in that.

I agree that it passes for Bin Laden. The vid that Fitz posted that is. I do not claim to be an expert on him however and can understand why someone would be suspicious after looking at the still Capn posted.

 

[fitzbew88]

Around the 7:52 mark is where they might have got the suspicious still.

Yeah, I can see that. Here is a quick comparison of some of the frames in that area with the Comparison JPEG photo.



I personally prefer 7:51 (due to the angle of the head). But if this range of frames *is* the correct source of the Comparison JPEG then it seems blatantly processed. The head looks like it has been shortened or possibly broadened. The nose is shorter and also broadened.

Unfortunately, this vid's quality is only a little better than the Patterson/Gimlin film, and we all know different people see different things in that.

It is fortunate in this case that we have "known good" photos/footage that at least provide a starting point for making up our own mind. Perhaps one day we will have other similar known good footage to compare to P/G.

I agree that it passes for Bin Laden. The vid that Fitz posted that is. I do not claim to be an expert on him however and can understand why someone would be suspicious after looking at the still Capn posted.

I agree. There is still a lot of mystery about this video, it's sources, etc.. I can't speak to any of that. The gentleman in the film with OBL (on the right side of the footage) certainly has an interesting history.

 

[CapnG]

I'm gonna shock you fitz. I think you're right.

Photo manipulation is not my forte but I know my photoshop basics and after resizing, skewing and adjusting for colour based on your sample screencaps I found an approximate version of the "fat" OBL grinning back at me. The nose still wasn't right and the ear's a bit off but I don't have pure sources. So, while all my previous ranting about facial recognition remains true, I recognize that all that goes out the window if the source has been tampered with as this appears to have been. In fact, my hat's off to whoever did the tampering because they knew to modify the key markers that make facial recognition possible (at least for that still) just enough to call authenticity into question.

On a seperate note, I also found what appears to be the hijacking procedures manual:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010601dod

What I find odd is that the FAA doesn't seem to call NORAD directly. They call central command who advises DOD who contacts the Secretary of Defense (in this case Rumsfeld) who then authorizes military force. That means that if indeed there were adminstration officials complicit in the 9/11 events then all Rumsfeld would have to do is make himself scarce until after the crisis thereby gumming up the works long enough to prevent a defense action and the goal is achieved.

And therein lies the core problem with the whole 9/11 issue for me. Eveytime I see something (like the photo comparison) that makes me suspicious and eventually gets dispelled to the point where I'm ready to say "You know, maybe it really was 19 pissed off muslim guys" I come across something like that FAA manual that raises my eyebrows. The way it's written, it's almost like it's INTENDED to fail.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I agree. There is still a lot of mystery about this video, it's sources, etc.. I can't speak to any of that. The gentleman in the film with OBL (on the right side of the footage) certainly has an interesting history.

On, no. I don't think there's a mystery. Only people not realizing that faces change when people laugh, and can appear differently from camera angles and time. Also lighting etc can make a tom cruise look like a tom booze. I noticed you said, I agree, is why I point that out. I didn't mean to imply there is a lot of mystery to this vid. IF that is what impression you got from my statements.

Capn isn't a moron, and I respect his views. He may well be right. But if he is, I sure as hell don't see it through the VAST majority of the vid.

 

[fitzbew88]

On, no. I don't think there's a mystery. Only people not realizing that faces change when people laugh, and can appear differently from camera angles and time. Also lighting etc can make a tom cruise look like a tom booze. I noticed you said, I agree, is why I point that out.

I don't understand. I was agreeing with your statement that "someone would be suspicious after looking at the still Capn posted."

I didn't mean to imply there is a lot of mystery to this vid. IF that is what impression you got from my statements.

I think there is still some mystery surrounding the video. Especially the "logistics". For purposes of this thread, my main focus has been whether there is a sound reason to believe that the OBL in the video is fake.

I don't understand the part about the impression.

Capn isn't a moron, and I respect his views. He may well be right. But if he is, I sure as hell don't see it through the VAST majority of the vid.

I agree with every word of this, and hopefully I have clearly shown that Capn's views are worthy of time and energy. (Pssst. You don't think he'll read that, do you? )

 

[fitzbew88]

...I also found what appears to be the hijacking procedures manual:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010601dod

Good stuff. This document is mentioned as a source in the 9/11 Report.

What I find odd is that the FAA doesn't seem to call NORAD directly. They call central command who advises DOD who contacts the Secretary of Defense (in this case Rumsfeld) who then authorizes military force.

These are military procedures. They are written to give military personnel guidance when they receive requests for help from the FAA in the event of a hijacking or if military resources are necessary to destroy "derelict airborne objects".

Interestingly, the section excerpted below seems to preclude the use of force in a civilian hijacking event.

Enclosure A-1.3.a states:

"Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers."

The 9/11 Report says

"Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense)."

It was presumed that the process would be something like:
1) The FAA would determine a hijacking was in process.
2) They would request support from the national military command
3) The national military command would marshall any assets necessary (in this case, presumably NORAD assets.)
4) If it became necessary to shoot a commercial airliner down, the order could come from either the President or the Secretary of Defense.

But this is all sort've academic since the policy wasn't followed.

FAA personnel at Boston Center called their regional NORAD center directly (not the national NORAD command -- Washington was circumvented). The request was not initiated by FAA/HQ. (In fact, the Pentagon NMCC---National Military Command Center---called over to the FAA about 9:00am --- the NMCC found out about the unfolding events from television. The FAA had not notified NMCC of the events.) And none of the "national" folks seemed to have any idea that jets had already been scrambled at 8:38am.

There were continued discussions between NMCC and FAA between 9:00am and 9:29am, but if anything effective was done during this period, I don't know what it was. At 9:29am, the NMCC decided to start a conference call to manage the crisis. The FAA was not added to this conferencal call initially due to technical problems..the FAA didn't begin to participate until 10:17am. (By this time the event had been over for 14 minutes.) And the FAA participant that did participate had no operational authority.

An absolute flustercluck.

The NMCC received confirmation that fighters could shoot down any hijacked airplanes directly from military personnel at the White House between 10:14am 10:19am. This was quickly relayed to NORAD, which quickly flashed the "shoot-down" clearance to it's subsidiary commands at 10:31am. NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the NORAD subsidiary command that was central to the military response that day received the message authorizing shoot downs. But the local NEADS commander did not pass the clearance to shoot to the actual planes because he said he was unaware of its ramifications. (Huh?) So the planes that had been scrambled into the air by NEADS did not know that they could shoot.

But two planes that had scrambled WERE given permission to shoot. How did this happen? Andrews AFB called the Secret Service directly when it heard that the Secret Service wanted patrols over DC. In that conversation, the Secret Service relayed directly from the Vice President that the President had authorized shooting. The planes from Andrews were given permission to shoot by their local commander at 10:42am. The 9/11 Report says

"...There is no evidence that NORAD headquarters or military officials in the NMCC knew—during the morning of September 11—that the Andrews planes were airborne and operating under different rules of engagement."

So at this point, the Air Force had some planes in the air with permission to shoot and others without. But does it really matter? At least some of the pilots did not know why they had been scrambled:

"...the lead pilot explained,“I reverted to the Russian threat...I’m thinking cruise missile threat from the sea.You know you look down and see the Pentagon burning and I thought the bastards snuck one by us. . . . you couldn’t see any airplanes, and no one told us anything.” The pilots knew their mission was to divert aircraft, but did not know that the threat came from hijacked airliners."

Flustercluck X 2.

That means that if indeed there were adminstration officials complicit in the 9/11 events then all Rumsfeld would have to do is make himself scarce until after the crisis thereby gumming up the works long enough to prevent a defense action and the goal is achieved.

If the commander at NMCC requests permission to shoot, I think the President would also need to be scarce.

I'm not sure how to plan a complex operation like 9/11 in a system like this. You can't count on anyone adhering to policy; you can't even count on any regional command entity to know what the policies/procedures are.

Infuriating.

And therein lies the core problem with the whole 9/11 issue for me. Eveytime I see something (like the photo comparison) that makes me suspicious and eventually gets dispelled to the point where I'm ready to say "You know, maybe it really was 19 pissed off muslim guys" I come across something like that FAA manual that raises my eyebrows. The way it's written, it's almost like it's INTENDED to fail.

I agree with you in the sense that the manual was totally useless for the circumstances that arose on 9/11.

I hope they've been able to sort all this out over the last seven years.

 

[Experiencer7]

Viva la Revolucion! Break out those rusty guillotines., oil them, sharpen them and have at it.

 

[CapnG]

Viva la Revolucion! Break out those rusty guillotines., oil them, sharpen them and have at it.

Do you really think tetanus (sp?) is a concern when you're decapitating the oligarchs?

 

[Experiencer7]

Do you really think tetanus (sp?) is a concern when you're decapitating the oligarchs?

The blade could hang up half way through the cut. Then you would have to jump up and down on it., inching it down. How uncivilized.