What has the truth movement actually gotten right?

[Meed]

What else have they gotten RIGHT?

-There did seem to be no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (although there was certainly reason to suspect him). The US gov. and the media basically just declared him guilty right away.

-The Jilalibad (sp?) video was translated for English-speaking TV in a misleading fashion that made it seem like confessions were being made where they actually were not. Oddly, a lot of truthers seem to ignore this and instead try to make the silly argument that it wasn't really Bin Laden in the video.

-The 9/11 Commission Report had some significant flaws in the way is was carried out.

-The media and government lie to or mislead the public all the time. And there is little media scrutiny of government except when it comes to simplistic scandals. Quite often the two are in bed.

 

[Meed]

^ I could be wrong on some of those points, I just haven't seen them effectively "debunked".

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by cornsail
-There did seem to be no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (although there was certainly reason to suspect him). The US gov. and the media basically just declared him guilty right away.

^ I could be wrong on some of those points, I just haven't seen them effectively "debunked".

bin Laden had been killing Americans for 10 years prior to 9/11/2001. It was in all the papers. The New York Times names bin Laden as our enemy more than 100 times in the 90s for his acts against us.

 

[TruthersLie]

Cornsail. Thank you for the reply.

-There did seem to be no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (although there was certainly reason to suspect him). The US gov. and the media basically just declared him guilty right away.

Hmmm... I know when we saw the second jet hit the second tower, I stated to my wife that UBL finally got us in the US.

of course after watching it burn for 30 minutes I also told her that both towers would be coming down.

Not sure if I agree with that.

But I would like to see ALL of the evidence against him.

-The Jilalibad (sp?) video was translated for English-speaking TV in a misleading fashion that made it seem like confessions were being made where they actually were not. Oddly, a lot of truthers seem to ignore this and instead try to make the silly argument that it wasn't really Bin Laden in the video.

Also correct. The arabic translation is a bit misleading, but he claimed responsibility enough times after that I am willing to just lump it in with the other confessions.

-The 9/11 Commission Report had some significant flaws in the way is was carried out.

and I do agree with this point. Of course the vast majority of truthers can't tell you HOW it was flawed. They just want to throw it all out.

-The media and government lie to or mislead the public all the time. And there is little media scrutiny of government except when it comes to simplistic scandals. Quite often the two are in bed.

Hmm.... I disagree with this as well. And it doesn't apply to 9/11 as a cover up. The media HATED GWB (wmds in iraq anyone? everything on MSNBC), so they wouldn't cover it up.

But I will add in the 9/11 commission had some flaws in the way it was set up, and how it was able to operate (though it doesnt' cast any doubts on their overarching conclusions that 19 hijackers took over 4 jets and crashed 3 of them into buildings and 1 into field murdering almost 3,000 people)

 

[aggle-rithm]

- Oddly, a lot of truthers seem to ignore this and instead try to make the silly argument that it wasn't really Bin Laden in the video.

I've noticed that about the truthers. Even when they have legitimate ammunition, they refuse to make use of it. I guess making a reasonable argument just isn't cool enough.

For instance, I once handed them, on a silver platter, a plausible motive for Larry Silverstein to blow up building 7 (there was no plausible mechanism, of course, but that's another story). I told them that Silverstein could have blown it up secretly because demolition by explosives is illegal in NYC, and it would have taken a year or more to dismantle it by other means. During that time Silverstein would have been losing millions of dollars and would be unable to rebuild.

But did the truthers use my idea? Nooooo. Too plausible, maybe. Or not sinister enough. Or perhaps it ddn't make Silverstein look enough like a money-grubbing Jew.

 

[Meed]

bin Laden had been killing Americans for 10 years prior to 9/11/2001. It was in all the papers. The New York Times names bin Laden as our enemy more than 100 times in the 90s for his acts against us.

That is far from "hard proof linking him to 9/11".

ETA: I think there may be something to the FBI most wanted list argument as well. Wanted for [insert non 9/11 crimes] and "suspected" for other acts of terrorism.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

-There did seem to be no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (although there was certainly reason to suspect him). The US gov. and the media basically just declared him guilty right away.

I don't know if I agree with this. First of all, it's a mistake to consider 9/11 in its own vacuum; the US had been dealing with Bin Laden since his days in the Sudan in the early 90's. Osama laid much blame on the US for him loosing a fortune in the Sudan, as well as being forced to leave there. America did strike at al Qaeda in the past; remember then President Clinton had ordered missile strike on their training camps back in '98? My point in this is that even absent any other information, the US and Bin Laden had been going back and forth for years prior to 9/11.

Remember, too, that it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not Bin Laden, who actually planned 9/11. Bin Laden was an enabler, a sort of godfather and blessings-giver, not a details-planner in Al Qaeda's operations. And recall that KSM's nephew - Ramzi Yousef - was the planner and executor of the first World Trade Center attack in '93, which seems to be the seed for the concept behind 9/11 (And if I'm analyzing things right, the concept of attacking the World Trade Center - a highly visible symbol of American capitalism - dovetailed with Bin Laden's desire to get back at the US for causing him to lose a great deal of his fortune in the Sudan). On top of all of that, recall that it was discovered that there was a 1996 meeting in Tora Bora between KSM and Bin Laden, and that was where KSM first proposed "an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States" (quote from the 9/11 Commision Report). KSM got the clearing and blessing from Bin Laden to go ahead and do the attacks a couple of years later and moved to Khandahar to plan with him. I don't want to get hung up in a detailed recitation of the links between KSM and Bin Laden, especially when sources like the 9/11 Commision report, and books like Ghost Wars, The Looming Tower, and the like are available. But my point is that it's not like there was no case at all for Bin Laden's involvement. Was he the "Mastermind"? Well, from just this alone, you can see that actually requires a nuanced answer: He allowed KSM to plan the details, and may have even had a give-and-take with him on certain details, but who's the "Mastermind"? The guy who does all the legwork, or the guy who sits back, lets associated individuals plan (recall that KSM was not sworn into Al Qaeda at the time of the planning) and then gives final blessing?

And to return to your post: What's hard evidence? There's most certainly a plethora of evidence linking Bin Laden to KSM, but none of it is, say, a photograph, or DNA evidence from a hair recovered from a location both KSM and Bin Laden were at. Nearly all of it consists of evidence such as testimonies, "paper trails" (in most cases, actually money trails, as best as they could track, that is), intelligence reports (hard to tell how much of that is electronic, how much is testimony from associates, how much of it is something else...), and things of that nature. Is that "hard"? Well, you tell me. I thought that the real distinction was between direct (eyewitness saw accused perform act "X") and circumstantial (accused was never witnessed firing the gun at person "Y", but owned the gun and tested positive for gunpowder residue). Neither are considered "weak" classes of evidence. My overall point here is that the statement about the sort of evidence the US has about Bin Laden can be taken the wrong way. Circumstantial evidence such as testimonies and paper trails may not be "hard", but they're hardly uncertain.

 

[BigAl]

That is far from "hard proof linking him to 9/11".

Then follow this URL and read more about ObL.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09


http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg
9/11 Comission Report Ch. 6.3
The Commission - The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation by Shenon, Philip
Messages to the world; The statements of Osama bin Laden translated by Bruce Lawrence
Congressional Report for Congress; Al Qaede: Statements and Evolving Ideology
The Power of Nightmares VIDEO (3 parts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 by Bamford
PBS Nova Spy Factory
Ghost Wars by Cole
The Looming Tower - Wright
The bin Ladens by Cole
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem
[14] KSM's indictment document

​

 

[Meed]

Also correct. The arabic translation is a bit misleading, but he claimed responsibility enough times after that I am willing to just lump it in with the other confessions.

I don't know if he confessed directly, but he certainly implied he was involved. Of course, it's possible he would see some benefit in claiming responsibility even if he were not involved.

and I do agree with this point. Of course the vast majority of truthers can't tell you HOW it was flawed. They just want to throw it all out.

Yeah, or they think it's flawed because "it didn't address WTC7 falling at free fall speed and turning into baby powder!!!!111"

Hmm.... I disagree with this as well. And it doesn't apply to 9/11 as a cover up. The media HATED GWB (wmds in iraq anyone? everything on MSNBC), so they wouldn't cover it up.

This is a sort of tricky position to argue on either side and warrants a much longer discussion than I'm going to give it here.

But the pattern I've noticed is that, while the media has no problem jumping on board with Repub vs Dem or Dem vs Repub scandals and talking points, that's about as far as they tend to go.

I'm not saying the media would or could cover up 9/11 being an inside job. It would be impossible to cover up something that big, involving that many people. They could simply choose not to report on it, like they did with COINTELPRO and various other things, but I consider that unlikely as well.

 

[Meed]

I've noticed that about the truthers. Even when they have legitimate ammunition, they refuse to make use of it. I guess making a reasonable argument just isn't cool enough.

Haha yeah, if I had to play truther I think I could argue a way better case than the majority of them. I would drop all the controlled-demolition/thermite and no plane nonsense immediately.

 

[Meed]

I don't know if I agree with this. First of all, it's a mistake to consider 9/11 in its own vacuum; the US had been dealing with Bin Laden since his days in the Sudan in the early 90's. Osama laid much blame on the US for him loosing a fortune in the Sudan, as well as being forced to leave there. America did strike at al Qaeda in the past; remember then President Clinton had ordered missile strike on their training camps back in '98? My point in this is that even absent any other information, the US and Bin Laden had been going back and forth for years prior to 9/11.

No doubt he had motive and was plausible as a suspect, but again, that's a far cry from proof.

Remember, too, that it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not Bin Laden, who actually planned 9/11. Bin Laden was an enabler, a sort of godfather and blessings-giver, not a details-planner in Al Qaeda's operations. And recall that KSM's nephew - Ramzi Yousef - was the planner and executor of the first World Trade Center attack in '93, which seems to be the seed for the concept behind 9/11 (And if I'm analyzing things right, the concept of attacking the World Trade Center - a highly visible symbol of American capitalism - dovetailed with Bin Laden's desire to get back at the US for causing him to lose a great deal of his fortune in the Sudan). On top of all of that, recall that it was discovered that there was a 1996 meeting in Tora Bora between KSM and Bin Laden, and that was where KSM first proposed "an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States" (quote from the 9/11 Commision Report). KSM got the clearing and blessing from Bin Laden to go ahead and do the attacks a couple of years later and moved to Khandahar to plan with him. I don't want to get hung up in a detailed recitation of the links between KSM and Bin Laden, especially when sources like the 9/11 Commision report, and books like Ghost Wars, The Looming Tower, and the like are available. But my point is that it's not like there was no case at all for Bin Laden's involvement.

You may be right. I haven't looked at the evidence (or lack thereof) for Bin Laden's involvement in depth (and not sure what sources you're drawing from). I'm also sure there is a lot more evidence now than there was 5 years ago.

And to return to your post: What's hard evidence? There's most certainly a plethora of evidence linking Bin Laden to KSM, but none of it is, say, a photograph, or DNA evidence from a hair recovered from a location both KSM and Bin Laden were at. Nearly all of it consists of evidence such as testimonies, "paper trails" (in most cases, actually money trails, as best as they could track, that is), intelligence reports (hard to tell how much of that is electronic, how much is testimony from associates, how much of it is something else...), and things of that nature. Is that "hard"? Well, you tell me.

Potentially (depends on the details). Not being an expert on the subject, I'll refer back to my disclaimer: "^ I could be wrong on some of those points, I just haven't seen them effectively "debunked". The debunker responses to the "how do you know Bin Laden was responsible?" and "FBI watch list" arguments I've seen have typically been very weak.

I thought that the real distinction was between direct (eyewitness saw accused perform act "X") and circumstantial (accused was never witnessed firing the gun at person "Y", but owned the gun and tested positive for gunpowder residue). Neither are considered "weak" classes of evidence. My overall point here is that the statement about the sort of evidence the US has about Bin Laden can be taken the wrong way. Circumstantial evidence such as testimonies and paper trails may not be "hard", but they're hardly uncertain.

Well, that depends. Such evidence could either be low certainty or high certainty.

 

[BigAl]

No doubt he had motive and was plausible as a suspect, but again, that's a far cry from proof.



You may be right. I haven't looked at the evidence (or lack thereof) for Bin Laden's involvement in depth (and not sure what sources you're drawing from). I'm also sure there is a lot more evidence now than there was 5 years ago.

bin Laden repeatedly and publicly declaring war on the US as early as 1991. He followed up on that threat by killing a few hundred Americans up to 9/10/2001. Since those attacks failed to get us to withdraw from the middle-east, he escalated the attack and kills 3,000 Americans.

Follow the links and learn.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09


http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
Al Qaeda Now - Understanding today's terrorists - Ed. by Greenberg
9/11 Comission Report Ch. 6.3
The Commission - The Uncensored History Of The 9/11 Investigation by Shenon, Philip
Messages to the world; The statements of Osama bin Laden translated by Bruce Lawrence
Congressional Report for Congress; Al Qaede: Statements and Evolving Ideology
The Power of Nightmares VIDEO (3 parts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares
The Shadow Factory - The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 by Bamford
PBS Nova Spy Factory
Ghost Wars by Cole
The Looming Tower - Wright
The bin Ladens by Cole
Spying Blind by Amy Zegart.

[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Ladem
[14] KSM's indictment document

 

[twinstead]

The debunker responses to the "how do you know Bin Laden was responsible?" and "FBI watch list" arguments I've seen have typically been very weak.

That's probably because you're asking the wrong people. Most debunkers have no idea the exact extent of the FBI's evidence against Bin Laden. I suppose a member of the investigation team would have a less weak argument? Regardless, the evidence that I have seen is pretty compelling to me, but I'm no expert in investigational matters; I could be wrong too.

 

[Meed]

Then follow this URL and read more about ObL.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09


http://911links.webs.com/index.htm

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed​

Okay, we've got motive already.

[8] Specific attack warnings

Lots of stuff here, any of it you find particularly compelling? Like I said, there was always plenty of reason to consider him a suspect and it seems that is what some of these articles support, but I'm not seeing anything here that looks like hard proof or even in the ball park. It's also worth pointing out that Al Qaeda != Bin Laden (a lot of this stuff only mentions the former).

[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
November 6, 2001 the Bush administration handed
such prosecutions over to the DoD and said this
circumvented the 5th ammedment requirement for
indictments
www.usdoj.gov/olc/2001/pub-millcommfinal.pdf
www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1113-07.htm

There is almost no discussion of the FBI in these links other than
"It expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists."
Okay, so the power to try terrorists militarily was granted. But clearly the FBI was still involved with counter-terrorism, after the fact. And Bin Laden WAS wanted by the FBI, but for only for terrorist crimes other than 9/11, in addition to "suspected" crimes (which I'm guessing included 9/11). The links do not explain any of this, as far as I can tell.​

 

[Meed]

That's probably because you're asking the wrong people. Most debunkers have no idea the exact extent of the FBI's evidence against Bin Laden. I suppose a member of the investigation team would have a less weak argument? Regardless, the evidence that I have seen is pretty compelling to me, but I'm no expert in investigational matters; I could be wrong too.

911links is a good example of what I'm talking about and it seems to be a thorough and well compiled website for the most part.

Of course you're right no one knows the exact extent of the evidence.

 

[BigAl]

Bin Laden WAS wanted by the FBI, but for only for terrorist crimes other than 9/11, in addition to "suspected" crimes (which I'm guessing included 9/11). The links do not explain any of this, as far as I can tell.

You insinuate that not being on the FBI list somehow makes him innocent. It doesn't. So what? It doesn't do anything to make all the evidence we do have go away.

I am not a lawyer but I believe the answer to your assertion is that to make the FBI's most-wanted list a grand jury has to hand down an indictment and that was done for bin Laden's attacks on U.S. citizens prior to 9/11/2001.

Since Dear Leader Bush wanted to make the 9/11 attacks a purely military issue, his Dept of Justice was never instructed to form a grand jury, hence ObL isn't on the FBI list for 9/11.

The second answer is that an indictment doesn't have to be complete. There was no need to update the FBI description after 9/11

See? There is a simple, non-conspiratorial explanation for all the k00k claims involving 9/11. Every last one of them.

 

[BigAl]

911links is a good example of what I'm talking about and it seems to be a thorough and well compiled website for the most part.

Of course you're right no one knows the exact extent of the evidence.

How would you know?

I compiled that list. Including the books in the bibliography it represents a couple years of reading. You responded without even taking the time to read all the web page citations.
Yes. I've read everything in that list.

 

[Meed]

You insinuate that not being on the FBI list somehow makes him innocent.

I've done nothing of the sort--this is a straw man. I insinuated that it may suggest a lack of hard evidence linking him to the crime.

Recall the topic of the thread: "What has the truth movement actually gotten right?" The FBI most wanted list claim is a truther argument that I haven't yet seen effectively debunked and therefore it's a candidate for what the OP was looking for.

I'm not asserting Bin Laden is innocent. Your responses have been very knee-jerk and seemingly blind to the prior discussion.

It doesn't. So what? It doesn't do anything to make all the evidence we do have go away.

Well there may be good evidence out there as others have suggested, I just didn't see much in the link you provided.

I am not a lawyer but I believe the answer to your assertion is that to make the FBI's most-wanted list a grand jury has to hand down an indictment and that was done for bin Laden's attacks on U.S. citizens prior to 9/11/2001.

True.

Since Dear Leader Bush wanted to make the 9/11 attacks a purely military issue, his Dept of Justice was never instructed to form a grand jury, hence ObL isn't on the FBI list for 9/11.

Is that from some external source or are you speculating? If that were the case it would make little sense that the FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorist Fugitives" list was constructed directly after 9/11 and the FBI's wiretapping powers among others were expanded for the sake of combating terrorism. Hardly seems "purely military".

From the FBI website:

"Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

 

[Meed]

How would you know?

I compiled that list. Including the books in the bibliography it represents a couple years of reading.

Ah, my apologies if I insulted it then.. It does seem like a well compiled list and an interesting read, but judging by the table of contents alone (and the articles I looked through), it doesn't appear to contain much material that would constitute "hard evidence". If the main evidence is in the books then the page should make that clear.

You responded without even taking the time to read all the web page citations.

That might take me all night, and given the category headings, would be unlikely to fit what I was looking for. I did ask if there was anything you found particularly compelling there.

Yes. I've read everything in that list.

That's impressive. Genuine props.

 

[Meed]

Another relevant piece of information:

Prior to invading Afghanistan, the Bush administration demanded that the Taliban "hand over Bin Laden" for the attack of 9/11. The Taliban responded that they would apprehend Bin Laden if we offered them some evidence that he was actually involved in the crime. They extended this offer twice during the buildup to the war. The Bush administration refused both times and demanded that he be handed over without evidence. Then we invaded.

Compare this to a roughly similar pattern that took place in our invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration demanded Iraq "hand over their WMDs". Iraq said "we don't have any". The UN brought in inspectors who found nothing. The Bush admin. got fed up and said essentially, "enough of this crap, we know they have them so we're invading".

Put this together with the misleading translations of the Jalalibad video and the lack of indictment by the FBI and picture becomes pretty clear: The Bush administration wanted faces and names for the public to fear and hate--and they wanted support for their invasions in the Middle East. They had little need for evidence and no problem lying to and misleading people.