Loose Change - Part II

[Childlike Empress]

There was only one occasion bin Ladin actively denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, in the Daily Ummat interview.

The Telepgraph article stated that he did four video messages. I think i remember that there were at least more than one. I'll research that ... later.

So given that the "inside job" theorists are so quick to assume the multiple other occasions when he or other al Qaeda implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility, are fake, why is it that they automatically assume this is genuine? Is it not possible that someone within the Taliban issued fake answers in the hope to at least buy more time before they were attacked? Is it not also possible that bin Ladin was pressured to lie on their behalf, for the same reason? How about the idea that he took this tack initially because he didn't want to give America a pretext for war, and so hoped they would suffer more politically if they did attack Afghanistan?

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. NO evidence to wage war on the world. NO evidence to piss on international law. What about your constitution? What about habeas corpus? You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

As i said before - i only want evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

You might want to check out the loose change forum. They love connecting dots.

Maybe they did too much of these when they were kids.

 

[Gravy]

Because the statements issued after that were not in any way clear "denials" of the attacks, at all, no matter how desperately the inside job theorists want you to believe that. For an example, see "news bbc co uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636 stm" (replace the spaces with dots) & ask yourself exactly how he's distancing himself from 9/11 here.

Good points. Here's the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

And an excerpt

As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.

That's a statement issued in October, 2001 in which he doesn't explicitly take credit for 9/11, but he does swear to God that he will see to it that the U.S. will continue to be punished.

 

[MikeW]

As i said before - i only want evidence.

You presumably believe a newspaper denial with no proof that the words were those of bin Ladin, are evidence. So I think comments like this, from Suleiman Abu Ghaith are at least as valid:

"He issued a chilling warning to the U.S., saying there would be no peace until it stops supporting Israel and ends blockades against Iraq.

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
"www cbc ca/story/world/national/2001/10/09/alqaeda_warn011009 html"
(replace spaces with dots)

Not an explicit acceptance of responsibility, but far from a denial, and this was only around 4 weeks after the attacks.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story.

Well, you are most certainly entitled to an opinion. Good luck with that whole finding evidence thing.

 

[Pardalis]

The Telepgraph article stated that he did four video messages. I think i remember that there were at least more than one. I'll research that ... later.

Again, why do we even bother debating what this f[rule8]cker is saying? (Bin Laden that is)

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. NO evidence to wage war on the world. NO evidence to piss on international law. What about your constitution? What about habeas corpus? You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

uh?

 

[Gravy]

Maybe they did too much of these when they were kids.

Good lord! This may be the breakthrough the CTs have been looking for! Somebody send this to Dylan Avery. (He apparently doesn't read my emails.)
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/connectdots/airplane/

 

[Gravy]

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. ...As i said before - i only want evidence.

Okay, I had to take a breather after that one. Empress, I don't know if you're just excited and writing too quickly, or if you really mean that.

Do you actually believe that there is "NO evidence" that the 19 hijackers, with help from abroad, planned and executed the attacks of 9/11?

 

[Childlike Empress]

You presumably believe a newspaper denial with no proof that the words were those of bin Ladin, are evidence.

No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers. Gravy, remember Tora-Bora? Why was it "too dangerous" to hunt Bin Laden on his way to Pakistan? Oh boy, i'm sure you want evidence but i'm not able to retell the last five years of media coverage to you AND provide evidence... See you for today.

 

[Pardalis]

And what is that "two 500 lbs bombs/virtual castration that 9/11 was" BS?

ETA: Can we keep the male genetalia symbolicism to a minimum please?

 

[RandFan]

Do you actually believe that there is "NO evidence" that the 19 hijackers, with help from abroad, planned and executed the attacks of 9/11?

What part of "NO" do you not get?

We'll, maybe the guy is simply engaging in hyperbole. "NO evidence"?

 

[Gravy]

You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

Moral of that story: don't invite a man with a $25 million price on his head for supper.

 

[RandFan]

YOU are the believers.

Sorry, but you are not going to get away with that BS. You bring the evidence and I will change my mind.

And don't give me this Tora-Bora crap. What the hell is that anyway?

 

[Childlike Empress]

@Gravy: Yes.

 

[Gravy]

No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers. Gravy, remember Tora-Bora? Why was it "too dangerous" to hunt Bin Laden on his way to Pakistan? Oh boy, i'm sure you want evidence but i'm not able to retell the last five years of media coverage to you AND provide evidence... See you for today.

You don't believe the U.S. would kill bin Laden, like they just did Zarqawi, if they knew for sure where he was?

 

[Gravy]

@Gravy: Yes.

Thank you. Have you read the 9/11 Commission report?

 

[MikeW]

No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers.

Then why did you just talk about bin Ladins denials? Falsely, I might add? Why is it that you cannot back up your claims? Why is that? Why, when presented with information that contradicts what you're saying, do you not admit there might be a problem, and instead move into attack mode? Because so far it looks like I'm the one backing up what I'm saying, and you're the one who has little more than "beliefs".

 

[MikeW]

Oops, just correcting myself, there was a second bin Ladin denial @ "archives cnn com/2001/US/09/16/inv binladen denial", however that makes the case even better that he was just trying to protect the Afghans, with lines like: ""I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations...". Once Afghanistan was attacked, he & al Qaeda moved to saying the attacks were carried out by Muslims, then suggesting that he incited them, then admitting to planning them (www cbsnews com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794 shtml). Although for some reason those attract less attention than the initial denials.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Oops, just correcting myself, there was a second bin Ladin denial @ " http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial ", however that makes the case even better that he was just trying to protect the Afghans, with lines like: ""I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations...". Once Afghanistan was attacked, he & al Qaeda moved to saying the attacks were carried out by Muslims, then suggesting that he incited them, then admitting to planning them (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml). Although for some reason those attract less attention than the initial denials.

Perhaps the propaganda machine and the CIA asset had some miscommunication about the Plan.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks Mike, i appreciate your honesty.