• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

metamars said:
Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.
Click to expand...

Umm, like the "half wits" in my thread that proved your fraud of a hero was trying to sell paint chips as "super thermite" in a vanity pay to publish non-peer reviewed fraud of an open access journal?

Did that joke of a paper cause lasting damage to the entire truth movement or just the dopes that wrote it and published it?

"Half wit" 16.5 checking out
 
metamars said:
Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.
Click to expand...

"I'd rather spend all day reading loopy blogs than educate myself, but I'm still smarter than all of you."

Guess how I know you're a Truther?
 
carlitos said:
BTW, I do not think that "half wits" means what you think it means. If you are going to insult people, don't use "facility" when you mean "faculty." Ask one of your teachers about this, if it isn't clear.
Click to expand...

dictionary.reference.com is your friend. Why don't you look up "half wit", and "facility", and report back to this thread what you find?
 
T.A.M. said:
Sure, after 3 years of the truth movement insanity, many here haven't the want or energy to knock down for the 5000th time
Click to expand...
TAM, the reason is pretty much the same reason idiots like Joe Newman and there perpetual motion idiocy go essentially unchallenged. Real scientists don't bother debating stupidity because a debate tends to be seen as something between scientific equals. All the TM deserves is ridicule and derision.
 
metamars said:
A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.
Click to expand...

Hope you used proper lifting technique on those goalposts. They're pretty heavy.

Whether it's a better question or not is subjective, but it wasn't my question. My question was, "Why don't the leading Twoofers come here to JREF and debate/defend their work?"
 
I think it is pretty apparent that metamars is not interested in anything even close to resembling the truth, or reality for that matter. There are accounts from credible sources that are in direct contradiction to what he posted and he does not even bother to look into it. He puts blinders on and just goes right along continuing to believe his fantasy. He cannot be bothered with silly things like facts. Typical twoofer behavior. Nothing new to see here.
 
Last edited:
help

metamars said:
dictionary.reference.com is your friend. Why don't you look up "half wit", and "facility", and report back to this thread what you find?
Click to expand...
Well, this was absolutely the last thing in the world that I expected to see here. So, I looked it up. I was obviously thinking of #4 below.
FACULTY:
  1. an ability, natural or acquired, for a particular kind of action: a faculty for making friends easily.
  2. one of the powers of the mind, as memory, reason, or speech: Though very sick, he is in full possession of all his faculties.
  3. an inherent capability of the body: the faculties of sight and hearing.
  4. exceptional ability or aptitude: a president with a faculty for management.

FACILITY:
1. Often, facilities.
a. something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities; educational facilities; a new research facility.
b. something that permits the easier performance of an action, course of conduct, etc.: to provide someone with every facility for accomplishing a task; to lack facilities for handling bulk mail.
2. readiness or ease due to skill, aptitude, or practice; dexterity: to compose with great facility.
3. ready compliance: Her facility in organizing and directing made her an excellent supervisor.
4. an easy-flowing manner: facility of style.
5. the quality of being easily or conveniently done or performed.
6. Often, facilities. Informal. a rest room, esp. one for use by the public, as in a theater or restaurant.
7. freedom from difficulty, controversy, misunderstanding, etc.: facility of understanding.

So, in your phrase "failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old" I assume that you meant that some of those who disagree with you "posit plausible explanations with the same dexterity and / or easy-flowing manner as a 10-year-old." Gotcha.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may disagree with you, but to your credit, I had never heard the word "facility" used in that context. I learned something today. :thumbsup:

Now that I have done what you suggested, and admitted a mistake, would you care to enlighten yourself regarding to some of the more substantive discussion here? Thanks in advance. :)
 
I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.

Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.

It sure looks like US intelligence agencies were given orders to back off Saudi linked terrorist organizations. In light of Scheuer's comment this means orders to back off al Qaeda. Scheuer has put forth a few explanations for US conduct. One, he has stated that pre-9/11 capture/kill missions failed due to risk averse policy makers. Two, he stated that CIA withholding about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was due to concern about poor FBI computer systems. Three, as previously mentioned he suggested that al Qaeda was protected by the Saudi government.

I don't consider myself a "truther." I do consider myself a skeptic of official explanations. Where is the 9/11 transparency from the government? If skeptics are so full of it then why is there so much secrecy almost eight years after the attacks?

1) When will the full CIA IG report be released?

2) When will key MFR's with intelligence agents be released? For example, we haven't heard from the chief of the intel side FBI Bin Laden unit (Rod Middleton) or the chief of Alec Station from mid-'99 through 12/01 (Rich B.). Frasca? Maltbie? Corsi? Wilshire? Are we to believe all the classification is truly for reasons of national security? There is not a chance that classification procedures could be abused to conceal embarrassing and/or criminal conduct? Why should we simply trust officials like George Tenet? Did he appear to conduct himself in good faith?

3) Why is it acceptable for someone like John Farmer to put out a book which claims to set the record straight while the public doesn't have access to many of the commission records? Again, are we supposed to take Farmer at his word? Why is "trust me" an acceptable standard of proof?

4) Where is the media interest? Why haven't we seen Rod Middleton interviewed? Kevin Foust was supposed to replace Middleton as chief of the UBLU in late September of '01. Instead he started on 9/11. Why didn't Dale Watson call Middleton back as he had a lot more working knowledge than Foust?

Agent's career forged in the fires of terrorism
 
Last edited:
thatsmystory said:
At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Your post represents a best-case scenario for somebody like myself who posts on a subject of great interest here at JREF, but not one for which I am willing to invest a lot more time, at this point in my life, to investigate further. And that is, that somebody like yourself comes along, who knows more than me and is willing to discuss it with some specificity, seriously and skeptically.

Although this should go into a new thread, and I thought to do so when I read it a couple of weeks ago, note that the LaRouche web site (I know, I know; the inevitable connection to the British is there; take it for what it's worth) recently posted a couple of articles (here's one) and a video about what is claimed to be the Saudi intelligence handlers of two of the hijackers while they were in San Diego. This is based on information de-classified earlier this year, plus a LaRouchean investigation.


The New Evidence

Early this year, the National Archives released documents from the files of the 9/11 Commission, which were previously classified. Three of those documents, recently obtained by EIR, provide the "smoking gun," proving the central role of Saudi intelligence, and the critical support role of British intelligence in the preparation, execution, and coverup of 9/11. The most significant of the documents, still partly classified, is a "Memorandum for the Record," summarizing an April 23, 2004 interview with a Southern California-based FBI informant, who rented out a room in his home to two of the 9/11 hijackers, during 2000. Although the memorandum redacted the informant's name, other public sources have identified the man as Abdussattar Shaikh. His FBI handler has also been publicly named as Steven Butler.

.
.

Shaikh's candid description of al-Bayoumi as a Saudi intelligence agent, in regular contact with one of the 9/11 hijackers, is stunning in its own right. The fact that Shaikh was an FBI informant, who, according to several U.S. intelligence sources, regularly received payments from the Bureau to keep tabs on the Muslim community in the San Diego area, and hosted two of the hijackers, is equally stunning. But the full extent of the al-Bayoumi dossier, as known to the FBI and other U.S. government agencies, goes well beyond the surface scandal.

Al-Bayoumi was far more than a "frequent visitor" to Shaikh's home, while al-Hazmi was living there. The essential facts are as follows.
.
.

But, al-Bayoumi was also, undisputedly, an agent of Saudi intelligence!
Click to expand...

Finally, you say:
Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.
Click to expand...

Well, I would say that it either casts doubt on the US/Saudi friendship, or it suggests that the "friendship" has a dark side. IOW, what if, metaphorically speaking, some element of the US intelligence establishment was "holding hands" with their Saudi counterparts, as 'intimately' as President Bush used to hold hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz? (and who knows how many other Saudis - he came up near the top in Google :) )
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Sorry, but Senenmut is actually correct about this part. The version on 911myths.com has been altered; most of the extraneous markings being removed.

I'll have a quick analysis up in a bit.
Click to expand...

If you read that 9/11myths.com page, you'll notice that right under that image it refers to this link.

That does not take you directly to the source, but it (along with the content of the image itself) indicates that Mike W. probably got the image from the stewwebb.com Web site.

It took a bit of looking (during which I should have been wearing a film badge or other dosimeter to measure my exposure to burning stupid), but here it is, exactly the same as seen on 911myths.com, in its natural habitat of a batcrap crazy professional conspiracy-theory grifter's Web site.

I think that we can have a high degree of confidence that whatever alterations have been made in that image have been made in the murk of a network of self-appointed "federal whistleblowers" who spend much of their time slagging each other as The Enemy and not by 911myths or any other reality-based Web site.

I didn't notice the Gunderson and red mercury references at first. Simply seeing the PROMIS and Inslaw references was enough to set off my "too good to be true" reflex. Finding that many keywords perfectly selected to tickle the conditioned reflexes of paranoid conspiracists in a single page was too much like finding a cold bottle of imported beer, a bottle opener and a frosted mug all in the same walk down to the corner store.
 
thatsmystory said:
I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.

Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.
Click to expand...

Hmm...that's interesting. For the second time in one day I see two new related items on the Saudis & 9/11.

There's the highlighted above and also a thead I posted earlier today on new purported information on the Saudis, Great Britain, & 9/11, which can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149722
 
See, this is the whole reason why 9/11 Trutherism is so frustrating.

There are some valid questions about the underlying support for al-Qaeda, i.e. who in the Saudi hierarchy supported them, did they know anything, was it just an individual here or there or was it whole ministries, etc. Let's not leap to conclusions without actual evidence, but these kinds of things are at least possible.

If true, these allegations also lay to rest ANY notion that anyone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, or that they were directed by elements rogue or otherwise in the US Government. Following this trail will take us farther from the realm of the Truth Movement, as science and logic usually does.

All this wild speculation about controlled demolitions, thermite, Leo Wanta, whatever only distracts and drags us further from a productive discussion. In fact, even in this thread we have people trying to extrapolate from possible Saudi support that the US supported bin Laden then, and even to this day. Stop that! It's stupid! I know you all want to polarize this discussion between "truth seekers" and "debunkers," but it just isn't that simple. What is polar, however, is the difference between "reasonable inquiry" and "wild speculation." If you're on the wrong side of that fence, then do something about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom