It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am sorry I cannot paste anything from that book, but there is information in there that talks about the planning and construction of the WTC. It is very very good information and gives you a better feeling as to why they collapsed.

bsbray, I understand we see 2 totally different views, and I have tried to digest all the websites with 9/11 conspiracy, and cannot swallow it. There is no proof, conclusive, of demolition. One blasting cap would sway me, jsut one.

Read 102 minutes and it explains the explosions that were heard, it gives some of the testimony and early phone calls and you realize where some of the misinturpretted communications came from. There were alot of theories that were created in that 102 minutes of horror.

Bin Laded did it, he has claimed responsibility in later commmincations. I believe it was his onw psyop to say that and turn the country against it's government. To me that is pretty plain to see.


Oh, really?

Still haven't answered my questions. Ok, since you blame OBL, I'll answer them for you.


Me: Who was responsible for the war games that so closely mirrored the actual events AND took place at the same time.

You: OBL

Me: Who warned those govt officials not to fly to New York?

You: OBL

Me: Who made NORAD stand down?

You: OBL

Me: Who told the Joint Chiefs of Staff to cancel their 9/11 meeting in New York on 9/10?

You: OBL

Me: Who told those govt officials to go public and say that it was an inside job? (I LOVE this one. As soon as we mentioned names, you shut up REAL fast
)

You: OBL

Well, you got me, the uber terrorist, with more ties to Bush than a little bit, did ALL of this! A guy this dangerous should have a 25 BILLION dollar bounty on his head!




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I don't want to play games Truth Seeka, that is why I don't reply. I respect your views, I just don't agree. I think it is all bu**s*** to tell you the truth, but I tried to refrain myself from stooping to the level of the posts you present. However,

You reiterate nothing but what someone else wrote, and since you drop a few names, you feel that the entire conspiracy is resolved. If you want to, you can "make' anything seem real be choosing to deny any other view. I have researched it through reading, and mining and have found that the WTC was not bought down by demolitions. Here, let me name drop from the mouths of those responsible.

This bin laden denial thing was a psyop by him to make people such as you distrust the government, He has already stated that he pulled it off in 2004. You are so blind.





en.wikipedia.org...
Shortly before the U.S. presidential election in 2004 in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaida's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."


He has also made it known that he has hatred for the US since the war in Lebanon in 82, prior to Afghanistan. Think the CIA would not have known that if they are 'behind' everything.




In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated by the 1982 Lebanon War, which he held the U.S. partially responsible for. In the video, bin Laden also claims that he wants to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy." [17]



And the CIA supplied the Taliban, not Al-qeada during afghanistan. Al-qeada was not even around thill after the conflict with Russia.

This information is in books, not the web, and you can check them out of a library, that are non-partisan biased. Check it out, knowledge is good for your health when you study both sides and come to your own conclusion.

The WTC was not the engineering marvel it was presented as, look for interviews of those who not only designed it, but built it, the construction workers and the contractors. It was a 100 story fire hazard waiting to happen, and it finally did.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
What are you talking about?

You reference a book. I suppose THAT wasn't written by someone else?
And please, dropping names doesn't solve the whole thing. What it DOES is blow your denial that govt officials doubt the official story out of the water.

You have done research. Please. Even a cursory search engine search will get you articles where govt officials doubt the official story. Oh, I get it, you only research the stuff that does not have to do with the non-scientific smoking guns.

As for the bin Laden denial being a psyop...
You wanna talk psyops? What about those fake bin Laden tapes being used by the neocons to push their agenda? What about the fact that Bush himself admits that the bin Laden tape that dropped in 04 helped him get re-installed, er, re-elected? What about the fact that Bush HIMSELF said that he wasn't worried about bin Laden?

Since you believe bin Laden was responsible, why the HELL do you have no questions about why Bush, the PRESIDENT, wasn't worried about catching the guy responsible for 9/11? Buzzy Crongard, with the CIA, said the same thing. Why would they feel this way about the man responsible for the biggest terror attack in US history? What about the fact that bin Laden has CIA affiliations? You can deny it until you're blue in the face, it will still be true.

So I'm the blind one? What about when they HAD OBL cornered at Tora Bora? They HAD him, but someone (I'll let you guess who) flew him and others away to safety. What about W199I, that document when Bush ordered the Feds to get off Bin Laden's tail?

And the towers were not all that? The Japanese who designed them didn't think so. In fact, HE said that they could withstand the impact of a 707, the biggest jet at the time. Funny how a lot of info on the construction of the towers was suddenly not available after 9/11. I'd ask you when was the last time a steel building collapsed from fire, but this last paragraph has already drifted off topic to the scientific aspects.

Oh, that's right, you have nothing to say because my posts are so juvenile. Asking about the war games is juvenile, I know. Asking about the warnings, same thing. Asking about the stand down, same thing. Do you DENY that all of that stuff happened because it's not yet in books? Well, that's not right, it's just not in books you would want to research.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
What are you talking about?

You reference a book. I suppose THAT wasn't written by someone else?
And please, dropping names doesn't solve the whole thing. What it DOES is blow your denial that govt officials doubt the official story out of the water.

You have done research. Please. Even a cursory search engine search will get you articles where govt officials doubt the official story. Oh, I get it, you only research the stuff that does not have to do with the non-scientific smoking guns.

As for the bin Laden denial being a psyop...
You wanna talk psyops? What about those fake bin Laden tapes being used by the neocons to push their agenda? What about the fact that Bush himself admits that the bin Laden tape that dropped in 04 helped him get re-installed, er, re-elected? What about the fact that Bush HIMSELF said that he wasn't worried about bin Laden?

Since you believe bin Laden was responsible, why the HELL do you have no questions about why Bush, the PRESIDENT, wasn't worried about catching the guy responsible for 9/11? Buzzy Crongard, with the CIA, said the same thing. Why would they feel this way about the man responsible for the biggest terror attack in US history? What about the fact that bin Laden has CIA affiliations? You can deny it until you're blue in the face, it will still be true.

So I'm the blind one? What about when they HAD OBL cornered at Tora Bora? They HAD him, but someone (I'll let you guess who) flew him and others away to safety. What about W199I, that document when Bush ordered the Feds to get off Bin Laden's tail?

And the towers were not all that? The Japanese who designed them didn't think so. In fact, HE said that they could withstand the impact of a 707, the biggest jet at the time. Funny how a lot of info on the construction of the towers was suddenly not available after 9/11. I'd ask you when was the last time a steel building collapsed from fire, but this last paragraph has already drifted off topic to the scientific aspects.

Oh, that's right, you have nothing to say because my posts are so juvenile. Asking about the war games is juvenile, I know. Asking about the warnings, same thing. Asking about the stand down, same thing. Do you DENY that all of that stuff happened because it's not yet in books? Well, that's not right, it's just not in books you would want to research.


So every search engine gives you stories that conflcit with the official story. Well, no sh&*. You're a genius.

This is why I was telling you to try to read a book. Read a history book that is pre 1960 or 1940 and look at how propoganda has molded out thought.

I am simply suggesting you read a book in "102 minutes." It would take a week or two at most. It gives alot of insight. It is written by 2 NYT writers, one who worked for the NYPD desk. It is very unbiased. All you keep giving me is 'the neocon agenda".

I am sorry but most evidence points to the official story. If you want to believe in something hard enough, you can be 25 and still believe in Santa, but that does not make him real.


Do you truly think that the gov't did not think bin Laden was a threat? They knew, since the late 80's and then they confirmed with the first WTC bombing. There are a few times that have been reported that bin LAden could have been taken out, and I would like to know why not? I am sure it is not a "oil deal thing", but a strategic decision of knowing that if you cut off one head, you create a 5 headed dragon of followers wishing to avenge the martyr. Like I said, I would like to know the real reasons. Clinton should have taken him out after the Cole bombing, which was acknowledged by OBL and AQ.

As far as the stand down and such, read a few timelines and see that it is directly laid at the feet of the FAA and the airlines. They were late to contact NORAD and when they did, there was still plenty of confusion. How many more planes are out there, were to send them. I mean, can you imagine the pressure of the ticking minutes in those few hours. This is why I wish I could find proof, but I believe the flight in PA was shot down to avoid it hitting the white house, the believed target.


Again, do a little research into the towers, it is pretty interesting. Did you know that the Rockefellers were the ones who secured the deal for the WTC years before the design. They wanted a World Trade Center, and it was originally supposed to be on the other side of the island. They original paln called for one tower, but since the design that was to be used was for commercial use, as much space as possible was needed. This created the design that was used.

and actually, if you use your search engine, you will find 2 steel buildings, have collapsed from fire, one that was located in NY. Like I said, pick up a book. Happy hunting.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

And the CIA supplied the Taliban, not Al-qeada during afghanistan. Al-qeada was not even around thill after the conflict with Russia.


And I think someone missed something.

Post Number: 2025901 (post id: 2050937)

"Wanna make the perfect truth-tini? Two parts vodka, no part fact."
Stephen Colbert



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Please enlighten me. I am always up for a point of view.

Russia invaded afganistan in 79, Taliban/muhjahdeen rebels fought them for 10 years(CIA funding and advising), Al-qeada popped up after the war in thevery late 80's. Is this incorrect?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
esad is right. We didn't fund nor establish Al Qaeda, we didn't even know about it for a while. Some of the people we trained however did end up in Al Q....

Al Q -
August 11, 1988: Bin Laden Forms al-Qaeda

Bin Laden conducts a meeting to discuss “the establishment of a new military group,” according to notes that are found later. Over time, this group becomes known as al-Qaeda, roughly meaning “the base” or “the foundation.” [Associated Press, 2/19/03 (B)] It will take US intelligence years even to realize a group named al-Qaeda exists.


1990 - first attack on US

Files found in Nosair's possession give details of an Islamic militant cell, mention al-Qaeda, and discuss the destruction of tall US buildings. Incredibly, this vital information is not translated until years later.


1st WTC attack - building doesn't collapse as hoped

Several of the bombers were trained by the CIA to fight in the Afghan war, and the CIA later concludes, in internal documents, that it was “partly culpable” for this bombing. [Independent, 11/1/98] US officials later state that the overall mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is a close relative, probably an uncle, of Yousef. [Independent, 6/6/02; Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02] One of the attackers even leaves a message which will later be found by investigators, stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.”



September 11, 1994
September 11th...hmm....sounds familiar....


A suicidal and apparently apolitical pilot named Frank Corder steals a single-engine plane from an airport north of Baltimore, Maryland, and attempts to crash it into the White House.

Now we all know the White House has missiles protecting it. You know why they didn't shoot this plane down?

1995 - Plot to bomb a dozen airplanes foiled

1995 - details of "second wave" emerge (first clue 9/11 was being planned - 6 years before they actually happened)
Yet people continue to insist Bush had everything to do with it.

1996 - FBI screws up. Al-Qaeda pilots begin training

Years of warnings and miscues from our intel agencies
More...

Saying the government and not terrorists were responsible for 9/11 is just unsubstantiated fantasies....
Well, the gov screwed up big time in not attacking these terrorists more aggressively and seemingly ignoring warning after warning. So with that they are partially responsible. But all this crap about terrorists and al-Qaeda not exsisting.....man, I wish I lived in your world.

You know why we knew it was al-Qaeda so fast? Because we knew they were planning something like this. As did many other governments around the world. You're telling me other countries around the world were also in on the plot to magically place explosives at the exact spots where the planes, which were really some sort of holographic illusions, went in?


"Well why didn't we do anything!? Doesn't that prove the government was involved?"
lol, not really....

Summer of 2001

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage later claims that at this time, CIA Director “Tenet [is] around town literally pounding on desks saying, something is happening, this is an unprecedented level of threat information. He didn't know where it was going to happen, but he knew that it was coming.”


1. The where. We had a pretty good idea that it would be NY and Washington. But the west coast had to be on alert (a plan there was just foiled a year ago in 2000), Chicago could have been a target, as well as anywhere overseas (there was an overseas alert out).

2. The when. This is the biggest issue. The attacks were thought to have been postponed twice before. Once in April and again in May. With all the chatter in August they knew something was going to happen soon, there no credible evidence however they knew it was going to happen on exactly 9/11.

3. The who. This is probably what the intel agencies screwed up the most. Of course this wasn't all their fault. Before 9/11, well, let's just say it wasn't the same as it was after 9/11 when money, resources, and manpower really started to flow in.


Anyway, continuing on...

August 2001 - Saddam puts military on highest alert.

Why?

Sept. 10, 2001 - Flags raised because of unusual trading
Bin Laden himself? Someone from another country who had knowledge of the attacks? It's unclear, who did it.

Millions of dollars go unclaimed after 9/11
lol, if it was someone who had foreknowledge of the attack they know if they do try and claim that money, they'll be arrested immediately.

From the 9/11 Commission:

According to the Final Report, the put options of the parent companies of United Airlines were placed by a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” “as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” With respect to the highly suspicious trading on the parent company of American Airlines, the Commission stated that much of the trades were “traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.” According to the Commission, “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.”


Generals warned not to fly
Not much evidence to back it up, but being as the alert level was very high it's not completely surprising

on 9/11
NORAD's exercises

one of NORAD's four major ANNUAL exercises

It's a week long, and 9/11 was NOT the first day of the exercises.


“We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/02] However, Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise.

*doh*

To add to the confusion, there were
Numerous False Reports of Hijackings as the attacks were taking place and afterward


Everything else that happened on 9/11

All those talking about how the non scientific stuff was unusual. Well, unusual compared to what? To the last time something like that happen?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
bsbray, I understand we see 2 totally different views, and I have tried to digest all the websites with 9/11 conspiracy, and cannot swallow it. There is no proof, conclusive, of demolition. One blasting cap would sway me, jsut one.


But you don't buy that the squibs were equivalent to just that. So, you're not being honest with yourself on this one. And if you know much about the history of demolition then you would know that these buildings would not be brought down with your conventional "blasting caps" anyway.


Read 102 minutes


I'm not reading it so you can stop suggesting it. If you can't argue on its behalf then I wouldn't want to read it anyway.


Bin Laded did it, he has claimed responsibility in later commmincations. I believe it was his onw psyop to say that and turn the country against it's government. To me that is pretty plain to see.


No OBL has ever confessed on any video tape that was not a fraud. And anyone can post on the internet or submit an article claiming to be OBL.

And yet there are two obvious fraud videos of OBL (including the one you reference), which were obviously put together with some craftsmanship nonetheless.

Just show me one video of the real OBL actually saying he did it.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
How would they bring it down then? Here, take a read that this 'professional,no- partisan sight of professional "Blasters" as they are called.

www.implosionworld.com...

and Here is your Bin Laden video

en.wikipedia.org...


and I was trying to give you something you might enjoy reading. in the book 102 minutes. I could actually give a # if you read it, I am not trying to promote the book or anything, but anyone who is 9/11 theorist should read it.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
How would they bring it down then?


See! It goes from "all I ask" to "oh yeah?" So don't even say crap like "one blasting cap would sway me."

The US military would not be using conventional explosives, so unless that's what the article is about, it's irrelevant anyway and I'm not going to waste time reading it. I spend enough time on these forums reading things that are much more legitimate.


and Here is your Bin Laden video


I just said I knew what video you are talking about. Check the faces; people have posted comparisons. Faces don't morph like that.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Have to agree with the theme of this thread... the proof of what happened on 911 has a lot to do with the less obvious human interactions surrounding that event.

The debunkers like science because frankly very little is known for certain in the scientific community thus, you can win any argument just by the amount of resources and determination you can bring to bear on it. They know this and that is their tactic.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   


I just said I knew what video you are talking about. Check the faces; people have posted comparisons. Faces don't morph like that.

maybe bin laden is reptilian
shape shifting , I would not be amesed if
they came up with that crap for the oficial story.
Nothing ameses me anymore, it's just a lie after another.

He also wears a ring which is forbiten by his religion and he writes with his
right hand, bin laden is left handed , just another screw up
that they made.
Allciada is doing flaws after flaws.





[edit on 7-3-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
What 'hi-tech' military grade explosives are you suggesting that the CIAL-qeada used? I am not backing away from anything, trust me. I keep asking the same question hoping to get some other kind of answer. if you don't like blasting cap, how about a detanator? I mean, unless these were special telekentic CIA spooks who did this remotely from the Empire State building, I would like to know how the explosive were actually 'triggered' to brin down the buildings.

(Sorry for the sarcasm)



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
1. The CIA supplied arms to the Taliban regime, not Al-Qeada. Al-qeada was born out of this conflict.

Wrong. See my signature for more information. Also it is interesting to note that the CIA was meeting with Osama Bin Laden in an American hospital in Dubai just weeks before 9-11. In the real world, Al-Qeada literally translates to 'the database', and they are no more than a list or database of Mujahdeen who were funded, armed and trained by western intelligence services. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the Taliban backed out of a pipline deal with Unocal, and Unocal was lobbying congress to bomb Afghanistan months before 9-11, it had jack to do with Bin Laden who, yes, was for many years a CIA asset. You may not choose to believe it, but there are two kinds of terrorism, real terrorism and false flag operations. One is generally a desperate act of criminality, the other is an age old tactic of war-mongering and manipulation.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Just one minor correction: "Al Qaeda" translates to "the base"

Not that it matters much.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
1. Govt people like Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11.

It is known that warnings were issued based on intel of coming attacks as early as March of 2001. It is known that the US knew Bin Laden and Al-Qeada were attempting a devastating attack in the US.

2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a meeting scheduled for 9/11 on 9/10.

Coincidence, meetings get cancelled all the time

3. Members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country that day when no one else was able to fly.

Members of the Bin Laden family flew out on the 20th of Sepetember, after the flying ban was lifted.

The 9/11 Commission also expanded on the following points in footnotes to the section of the report quoted above:
During the morning of September 11, the FAA suspended all nonemergency air activity in the national airspace. While the national airspace was closed, decisions to allow aircraft to fly were made by the FAA working with the Department of Defense, Department of State, U.S. Secret Service, and the FBI. The Department of Transportation reopened the national airspace to U.S. carriers effective 11:00 A.M. on September 13, 2001, for flights out of or into airports that had implemented the FAA's new security requirements.

After the airspace reopened, nine chartered flights with 160 people, mostly Saudi nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. In addition, one Saudi government flight, containing the Saudi deputy defense minister and other members of an official Saudi delegation, departed Newark Airport on September 14. Every airport involved in these Saudi flights was open when the flight departed, and no inappropriate actions were taken to allow those flights to depart.

Another particular allegation is that a flight carrying Saudi nationals from Tampa, Florida, to Lexington, Kentucky, was allowed to fly while airspace was closed, with special approval by senior U.S. government officials. On September 13, Tampa police brought three young Saudis they were protecting on an off-duty security detail to the airport so they could get on a plane to Lexington. Tampa police arranged for two more private investigators to provide security on the flight. They boarded a chartered Learjet. The plane took off at 4:37 P.M., after national airspace was open, more than five hours after the Tampa airport had reopened, and after other flights had arrived at and departed from that airport. The three Saudi nationals debarked from the plane and were met by local police. Their private security guards were paid. and the police then escorted the three Saudi passengers to a hotel where they joined relatives already in Lexington. The FBI is alleged to have had no record of the flight and denied that it occurred, hence contributing to the story of a "phantom flight." This is another misunderstanding. The FBI was initially misinformed about how the Saudis got to Lexington by a local police officer in Lexington who did not have firsthand knowledge of the matter. The Bureau subsequently learned about the flight.

These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot ... The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.




4. War games mirroring the attacks took place before and during 9/11.

These were in place and are annual exercises.

5. NORAD stood down and did not pursue the planes.

This is not true. There was confusion, lost time between the Airlines, then the FAA and then NORAD along with misreports of numerous other suspected hijackings that morning. Did you want the Air Force to start shooting planes out of the sky. The only one we were able to stop was flight 93.

6. The identities of all the hijackers were easily produced the next day, yet these guys could not be ID’d, found, and stopped before 9/11.

I guess you never watched the video of them getting on at Logan, or the suitcase that was found that was Atta’s. They were all known of prior to 9/11 but not matched to this plot. It has been blamed on interdepartmental non-cooperation which is why the DHS is needed for information sharing. Our government has admitted to this.

7. Prominent govt people have gone public saying the official story is a fraud.

Who? What is your definition of prominent?

8. Bin Laden is a known CIA asset.

Known to Prison planet....


9. The PNAC documents authored by people such as Dick Cheney outlined a list of countries to be invaded after a helpful Pearl Harbor type event occurred. Magically, the first 2 countries on this list have been invaded after 9/11. Iran, 3rd on the list, appears to be next.

PNAC is a think tank, this is expected.

10. Operation Northwoods shows that criminal elements in the govt have planned to carry out terror attacks to get the public behind war.

This is another in a long list of ideas that never came to fruition, and was masterminded by disgruntled military officers. Never happened



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
He also wears a ring which is forbiten by his religion and he writes with his
right hand, bin laden is left handed , just another screw up
that they made.
Allciada is doing flaws after flaws.


I think you are talking about the 2001 video released by the US.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The 2004 video does not appear to be faked IMHO.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Yes, he is referring to the tape that DOES not look like bin laden, however if he was having issues with kidneys and liver, bloating and face changing can occur. before my uncle died, he never looked like himself, always a lillte heavier because of fluid retention, and a guant, charcoally face such as OBL has in that video.

The 2004 video was pre election.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


The 2004 video was pre election.


And people don't find this a little disturbing? I mean that video was either made or saved to be aired right before the elections. Why would OBL want to help his arch nemesis GW? Unless, they are actually friends.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   



en.wikipedia.org...

He dismissed as rhetoric claims by U.S. President George W. Bush that the attacks occurred because Islamic extremists "hate freedom", saying: "If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 - may God have mercy on them."

Bin Laden further accused U.S. President George W. Bush of misleading the American people during the following three years — "Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened" — as well as criticizing Bush's actions on the day of the attacks: "It never occurred to us that the Commander-in-Chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important."

The release of the tape was reportedly timed to occur just four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election and bin Laden mentions both of the major contenders, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."

."


This is a direct excerpt of the speech, and I never had any friends who talked about me like that.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by esdad71]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join