• 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

boloboffin said:
Since she has previously described this alleged proxy usage of bin Laden, how is this in any way an actual bombshell?
Click to expand...


Heh. metamars tells two lies1 in the subject of the thread. Is that a record?

-----
1. The first lie is that this is a "bombshell", as it's nothing new. The second lie is that Osama "worked for US", when the claim is actually that he was manipulated by proxy.
 
Furthermore, even if the document were legitimate, what would it tell us? From Mike's page:

We’re uncertain about the witnesses to this meeting, then. The only document purporting to show that “Tim Osman” was bin Ladin is unsourced, as far as we can see. And even if we take the story as literally true, it doesn’t offer strong support for the common “bin Ladin was trained by/ funded by the CIA”. claims. In fact Gunderson’s account has him picked to meet Osman exactly because he didn’t work for a Government agency any more, therefore this story could be used to show there weren’t strong links between bin Ladin and the CIA at this time.

Given these issues, it’s hard to see how the Osman story can tell us very much on its own. More evidence is essential before we can begin to form a reliable picture about what, if anything, this means.
Click to expand...

He's right.
 
FineWine said:
Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links
Click to expand...

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.
 
Senenmut said:
yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.
Click to expand...

So, it is unsourced? You have no idea where it came from?

Let me get this straight, you want me or somebody else to find the origin of a piece of paper, which you have offered up. Why would anybody do that for you? If you are so concerned why don't you do it?

if it bothers you so much and you think it is significant what, exactly, is stopping you from finding out where it came from ?
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.
Click to expand...


Notice how you "truthers" get caught in silly lies. You pretend, unconvincingly, that you've already read the 9/11myths discussion. Yet, you post the garbled piece of paper that shows nothing in particular. What are you expecting? Osama has said repeatedly that he had no contacts with the Americans.
 
Metamars, why don't you do us all a favor and list the idiocy you don't believe. We should be able to address that in a few minutes.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Furthermore, even if the document were legitimate, what would it tell us? From Mike's page:



He's right.
Click to expand...


Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed by American Free Press more than one time, but he is also a regular speaker at AFP conferences , and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002. This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser”.

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
 
You know, I'm willing to actually believe that the "Osman" document is legitimate. It's just that my response to the info is still "so what?". One, single documented meeting? If the presumptions about the document are true? Even if we take it at face value, as Mike W. said, it actually bolsters the argument that CIA - bin Laden links were weak, not strong. And extrapolation beyond the single meeting would be too much of a stretch given the paucity of information on the paper.

And that's only if it's for real. Me, personally... I have no way to prove this, but I've come to a tentative conclusion it's nothing more than maybe an agenda for discussion. That last segment that reads "USG APPROVAL and DELIVERY OF:" reads like many of the proposed "Action Items" I see circulate before formal meetings where I work ("Blackout of System "X" for vendor upgrade..."), the point being that a doc that states something in a very straightforward, positive manner can still be nothing more than a point for discussion.

And let's be honest: We've never been given the source of the agency/department/bureau that the FOIA was for. We've never been given verifiable information. So even though I'm willing to grant it legitimacy, I still say that its suspect because there's no way to verify that it even came from the government.

Anyway, enough about this "Osman" doc. Even if it were true, it's still only one single point of data. And there are reams of publicly available and verifiable pieces of information more fully explaining Osama's activities than this one does.
 
progge said:
Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed by American Free Press more than one time, but he is also a regular speaker at AFP conferences , and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002. This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser”.

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Good point. While details about the originator of the doc do not definitively refute it, the fact remains that credibility matters. And a tainted source must be viewed with a highly doubting eye, especially when no collaborating evidence is provided.

It's been said a zillion times in this forum: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This one is no exception.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
So, it is unsourced? You have no idea where it came from?

Let me get this straight, you want me or somebody else to find the origin of a piece of paper, which you have offered up. Why would anybody do that for you? If you are so concerned why don't you do it?

if it bothers you so much and you think it is significant what, exactly, is stopping you from finding out where it came from ?
Click to expand...

ive tried to find the source and couldnt find it. im not asking for anyone to find it for me. i was hoping that someone did know the source. 911debunking didnt know. so what is wrong with me asking??
 
Senenmut said:
ive tried to find the source and couldnt find it. im not asking for anyone to find it for me. i was hoping that someone did know the source. 911debunking didnt know. so what is wrong with me asking??
Click to expand...

Really ?

And this is how you ask is it ?

Senenmut said:
have any debunkers figured out where this came from yet? <snip>

i doubt any "twoofer" would go through the trouble and create something like this....

<snip>
Click to expand...

So if you wasn't asking somebody to find the source of this paper for you, what exactly was you asking ?

Maybe you could state the exact reason you put forward the paper.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
You know, I'm willing to actually believe that the "Osman" document is legitimate. It's just that my response to the info is still "so what?". One, single documented meeting? If the presumptions about the document are true? Even if we take it at face value, as Mike W. said, it actually bolsters the argument that CIA - bin Laden links were weak, not strong. And extrapolation beyond the single meeting would be too much of a stretch given the paucity of information on the paper.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Sometimes it's good to play Devil's Advocate, but here the document is so laughable that there's no point.

Anyone with vision better than about 20/200 will note the one Senemut brought is not the same as the one we've seen before, as shown at 911Myths. The new one has got lots more scary notes and redaction marks on it.

These are, quite unquestionably, forgeries. Clumsy ones.

So at some point, somebody decided the original, with bizarre references to bin Laden, Red Mercury, and even Neutronics (???) on the same page, still wasn't exciting enough for the conspiracy set, and decided to add even more. Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.

So, what reason do we have to accept this document? We know it's been altered, and we have no original provenance, and we know the person who originally brought it forth is a complete loon...

To the conspiracy set, you'll find your lives a lot less embarrassing if you stop falling for all this stuff. I can't believe anybody buys it, but you keep exceeding my expectations.
 
R.Mackey said:
Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.
Click to expand...


Um, I can´t forbear to point out that Ted Gunderson has done some extraordinary research on Area 51, too.

make the introductions for the speakers who included Ted Gunderson.. who was speaking from his position of authority, having been an ex-FBI chief and retiring after 27 years of service.......they began by showing a small segment of a true film( from Thomas C. who gave his life for us to have the information ) on both the creatures that were being created at Area 51 from our human DNA... and the Sacrificial Rites called Satanism.... in which our fellow humans are slaughtered..
Click to expand...

http://web.archive.org/web/20000616221714/http://www.wiolawa.com/area51.htm
 
Last edited:
Doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me is how adults, no matter how uneducated, can fall for things like this. It's not even smart enough to qualify as a hoax, it's just a page full of nonsense written by a schizophrenic!
 
I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm not. Sometimes it's good to play Devil's Advocate, but here the document is so laughable that there's no point.

Anyone with vision better than about 20/200 will note the one Senemut brought is not the same as the one we've seen before, as shown at 911Myths. The new one has got lots more scary notes and redaction marks on it.

These are, quite unquestionably, forgeries. Clumsy ones.

So at some point, somebody decided the original, with bizarre references to bin Laden, Red Mercury, and even Neutronics (???) on the same page, still wasn't exciting enough for the conspiracy set, and decided to add even more. Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.

So, what reason do we have to accept this document? We know it's been altered, and we have no original provenance, and we know the person who originally brought it forth is a complete loon...

To the conspiracy set, you'll find your lives a lot less embarrassing if you stop falling for all this stuff. I can't believe anybody buys it, but you keep exceeding my expectations.
Click to expand...

did PROMIS software exist? did the mossad have it and what did they use it for?

answer- they spied on people with it!!

try reading alittle bit about it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1I...&dq=gideon's+spies#v=onepage&q=promis&f=false

did bin laden have it?

" Fox News has learned that government officials suspect Osama bin Laden may have highly sophisticated U.S. government software, that has been used by several governments, including the United States, for classified intelligence and law enforcement information.

Bin Laden allegedly purchased it from Russian sources, after Russia got it from convicted spy and former FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who was nabbed earlier this year. "

http://www.boingboing.net/2001/10/17/remember_promis_it_w.html

so do u think the mossad could have accesed bin laden through the promis software he had. if u read some of gideons spies, i would see it NOT too far of a stretch!
 
Last edited:
WUBRINY63 said:
I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.
Click to expand...

Wrong on most points. See the relevant sections of the web page, below. I suggest you read soime of the books listed in the bibliography.

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

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

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
[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 Laden
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom