[Merged]Al Qaeda To Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 CTs!

[Par]

What I want to know is when some debunker tells me KSM is guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks because he went around bragging about it before he was even caught, how exactly the debunker can know that he wasn't just bragging?

Well, if you want to claim that the freely given confessions were spurious, then by all means present your evidence for the same.

 

[Par]

When did AQ officially come forward claiming responsibility? Because I thought UBL initially claimed to not be behind the attacks.

Osama bin Laden initially denied responsibility; he then claimed responsibility a number of times.

 

[Par]

When did they list their grievances and demands?

Nineteen ninety-six.

 

[TC329]

Yes you guys are so so smart. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes anytime soon. Just because Al Qaeda is defending Israel and attacking Muslims in Iran doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

LMAO

 

[pomeroo]

No I thought maybe the poster of this thread just realized it.

No, you thought nothing of the sort.

What I want to know is when some debunker tells me KSM is guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks because he went around bragging about it before he was even caught, how exactly the debunker can know that he wasn't just bragging? Especially in light of all the other crap he confessed to that he couldn’t possibly have been involved in. I think one CIA official called it a lot of white noise.

No, you have no interest in this faux-question. KSM has provided a wealth of valuable information to intelligence-gathering services. The massive, multi-agency investigation--the one you are totally unaware of--learned the identities of the hijackers without KSM's help.

When did AQ officially come forward claiming responsibility? Because I thought UBL initially claimed to not be behind the attacks. Kind of a waste to go to all that trouble making such a grand statement and not immediately take credit for it. When did they list their grievances and demands?

AS YOU KNOW, Osama started bragging about his role in planning the attacks as soon as his ploy to muddy the water, to throw a roadblock in the path of America's decision to remove the government that protected him, failed. (I would argue that a President Al Gore would fallen hook, line, and sinker into the trap and would have involved us in endless, pointless wrangling in the U.N., only to conclude that the Taliban might not be culpable. Obviously, we'll never know for certain, and this is a topic for the politics forum.) Once he had been driven from Afghanistan, Osama started taking credit for his group's victory.

 

[Par]

Yes you guys are so so smart. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes anytime soon. Just because Al Qaeda is defending Israel and attacking Muslims in Iran doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

You’re committing the argument from incredulity fallacy. (Remember when you were caught lying a few weeks ago?)

 

[Clippy]

Who said anything about Bush? Of course I don't have proof that al Qaeda collaborated with elements within the US government on 9/11. I'm not even saying they were in cahoots. To me, parts of the official version just don't make sense. e.g. no fighter interception, FBI investigations being buried, Hanjoor's flight manoeuvre, Mineta's timeline, put options whose purchaser is not named. They're red flags, not proof. I see 9/11 being treated as a scientific theory where the government version has the advantage of having been provisionally accepted without critique (e.g. collapse of twin towers and WTC7). Evidence has been destroyed or is not accessible. It's going to be an uphill battle to prove anything. The question is do the American people see enough red flags to make them demand a new investigation. No, I don't think the last one was impartial.

 

[pomeroo]

Yes you guys are so so smart. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes anytime soon. Just because Al Qaeda is defending Israel and attacking Muslims in Iran doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

LMAO

Well, we're surely smart enough to realize that anyone who tries to pretend that al Qaeda is "defending" Israel is hopelessly insane. Your lie about the CIA is ancient history. It was exposed long ago: Osama has never cooperated with the CIA.

Your evil movement does a great deal of laughing, but absolutely no thinking.

 

[Par]

To me, parts of the official version just don't make sense. e.g. no fighter interception, FBI investigations being buried, Hanjoor's flight manoeuvre, Mineta's timeline, put options whose purchaser is not named.

These issues are scarcely novel to us. I recommend that you make use of the search function.

 

[pomeroo]

Who said anything about Bush? Of course I don't have proof that al Qaeda collaborated with elements within the US government on 9/11. I'm not even saying they were in cahoots. To me, parts of the official version just don't make sense. e.g. no fighter interception, FBI investigations being buried, Hanjoor's flight manoeuvre, Mineta's timeline, put options whose purchaser is not named. They're red flags, not proof. I see 9/11 being treated as a scientific theory where the government version has the advantage of having been provisionally accepted without critique (e.g. collapse of twin towers and WTC7). Evidence has been destroyed or is not accessible. It's going to be an uphill battle to prove anything. The question is do the American people see enough red flags to make them demand a new investigation. No, I don't think the last one was impartial.

Your bogus "red flags" consist of thoroughly debunked nonsense--really old stuff that has been analyzed to death. Your unfamiliarity with such basic material is your problem.

 

[Par]

The question is do the American people see enough red flags to make them demand a new investigation.

Evidently they do not.

 

[WildCat]

What the heck is this talking about? It just came out of left field with no evidence.

Duh, everyone knows that cave Arabs can't work a video camera, therefore it must have been the CIA or the ISI behind the lens.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Dunno if it's a fake video. Some message boards debate whether the PAL-> NTSC conversion explains all observed anomalies. When the war on terror started, there was no hard evidence linking OBL to the attacks. AQ supplied the patsies for 9/11.

No, AQ supplied Hijackers for 9/11, hijackers whose names were on the offical flight manifests (not the lists of victims or identified bodies that the CTs keep waving about.) These men were tracked back to visits in Afghanistan, to radical Mosques and the money trail was tracked back to Khalid and Ramzi, both who stated on Al Jezzera that they were involved in 9/11 3 months before capture. There was certainly enough "hard Evidence" for a Jury to convict Zacarias Moussaoui, and there is enough "hard evidence" for the US to indite KSM, RB and four others they currently have in custody. So what more do you want?

 

[dudalb]

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, do we have to explain that there was no fighter interception because before 9/11 the US Airforce saw no reason to have CAP (Combat Air Patrol) in the continental US (and they did not even have that during the height of the Cold War?)

 

[Stellafane]

Yes you guys are so so smart. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes anytime soon. Just because Al Qaeda is defending Israel and attacking Muslims in Iran doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

LMAO

What a curious little world you must live in.

 

[CHF]

Yes you guys are so so smart. No one is going to pull the wool over your eyes anytime soon. Just because Al Qaeda is defending Israel and attacking Muslims in Iran doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

LMAO

So Al Qaeda did carry out 9/11, but were backed by the CIA?

Is this your position?

 

[Drudgewire]

What a curious little world you must live in.

Mainly lots of dirty dishes and cans bent on the side to smoke crappy weed out of.

Unless they've tidied up since back when I lived there.

 

[PhantomWolf]

doesn't mean the CIA has their hand up Bin Laden's ass still like they did in the 80's. No, not at all.

The lies just keep coming from you TC. OBL and the CIA have never had a relationship (other then trying to kill each other.) That is likely the only thing the two group will agree on. OBL was under the control of and backed by the Saudi GID while in Afghanistan in the 80's. The CIA backed Gulbuddin Hekmatyar through the Pakistani SIS (The SIS choose who to support not the CIA, the CIA just paid the bill,) and independently they supported a handful of individual Afghani commanders such as Abdul Haq (and before you get excited thinking he's part of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, I mean this Abdul Haq who was anti-AQ and anti-Taliban (and also anti-US funnily enough) who was captured by the Taliban and executed in October 2001.) The US State Department independently supported Ahmed Shah Massoud from about 1985 up until 1990 (and then, like the CIA did with Hekmatyar, they dropped him like a hot potato until the mid-90's when they thought he could be useful again.) None of the US Government groups supported OBL or the Maktab al-Khadamat, they were funded by Muslim Charities and the Saudi Government through the GID. The GID even called OBL "Their Man" and relied on him to carry out their instructions in Afghanistan. As a result it took them some time to come to the realisation that he was rogue and that they couldn't control him once he returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990.

His actions between 1980 and 1996 reveal the lie of the CIA being anywhere near to him. His actions were always done with one goal in mind, the elimination of non-Muslim Governments and the establishment of Islam theocracies across what was once the Islamic World. As such he didn't even look at the US as an issue until 1993 and didn't do anything about them until 1996. His first attack on them was 1998, and that was after the US had him kicked out of Sudan with barely the clothes on his back and nothing else.

History simply does not uphold your lies TC, go and learn about reality, get your head out of your fantasy world, it's not good to live with delusions so long.

 

[gtc]

as VP he was involved, and when he is admiting to his alleged criminal involvment, well i think i would belive him, but would anyway want to see evidence, and want it to be investigated.

I agree with your reasoning, although I don't think that Cheney was involved.

If someone admits their involvement, then we should believe him, at least provisionally, but we still want an investigation that will show us the rest of the evidence and rules out other possibilities

In this case we have a confession and a mountain of evidence that shows that Al-Q were behind the attacks, no evidence that contradicts that conclusion and no evidence to support any other theory.

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, do we have to explain that there was no fighter interception because before 9/11 the US Airforce saw no reason to have CAP (Combat Air Patrol) in the continental US (and they did not even have that during the height of the Cold War?)

Soviet airbases not being primarily located in the Contintental USA being the major reason for that decision, I suspect.

 

[boloboffin]

Al Qaeda, ideologically opposed to Iran, tells them to stop saying Israel did what Al Qaeda actually did.

In the world of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, this is called "defending Israel."