Someone please debunk or explain this, II, page 1\'

This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

Someone please debunk or explain this, II << 1 2 3 >>

Topic started on 5-6-2006 @ 11:30 AM by ThatsJustWeird
Since apparently there is indisputable evidence somewhere that the gov. was completely behind the attacks this should be easy then. Let's go back a bit.... Before the US paid much attention to terrorist, before there was cooperation between our intel agencies, back when our intel agencies where at least about 30 or more % smaller and didn't have the funding or manpower to fight terrorism that it has now. 1990: There's an assasinnation Egyptian-American El Sayyid Nosair assassinates controversial right-wing Zionist leader Rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane’s organization, the Jewish Defense League, was linked to dozens of bombings and is ranked by the FBI as the most lethal domestic militant group in the US at the time. So basically Nosair assassinates the leader of a (Jewish) terrorist organization. But...murder is murder and Nosair is arrested (after a shoot out). In his home the police find: Thousands of rounds of ammunition. Maps and drawings of New York City landmarks, including the World Trade Center. Documents in Arabic containing bomb making formulas, details of an Islamic militant cell, and mentions of the term “al-Qaeda.” Recorded sermons by Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman in which he encourages his followers to “destroy the edifices of capitalism” and destroy “the enemies of Allah” by “destroying their ... high world buildings.” Tape-recorded phone conversations of Nosair reporting to Abdul-Rahman about paramilitary training, and even discussing bomb-making manuals. etc. Unfortunately the NY police detectives screw up and we don't catch others who helped him. 1992 I was told once the number of translators able to translate the arabic languages before 9/11 compared to the number after. You'd be saddened. Feb. 1993 1st WTC attack An FBI explosives expert later states that, “If they had found the exact architectural Achilles’ heel or if the bomb had been a little bit bigger, not much more, 500 pounds more, I think it would have brought her down.” CIA realizes it's made a mistake (back in the '80s) 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.* One of the attackers even leaves a message which will later be found by investigators, stating, “Next time, it will be very precise.” June 1993 NY landmark bombing is foiled. Dec. 1994 Trial run of Operation Bojinka More on - Operation/Oplan Bojinka (1994 Plot to fly plane into Eiffle Tower foiled) Jan 1995 This is when Operation Bojinka is foiled. Jan 1995 cont'd Philippine and US investigators learn that Ramzi Yousef, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and their fellow plotters were actually planning three different attacks when they were foiled in early January. In addition to the planned assassination of the Pope, and the first phase of Operation Bojinka previously discovered, they also planned to crash about a dozen passenger planes into prominent US buildings. It is often mistakenly believed that there is one Bojinka plan to blow up some planes and crash others into buildings, but in fact these different forms of attack are to take place in two separate phases. More on Bojinka, the second wave Murad reveals a plan to hijack commercial airliners at some point after the effect of Bojinka dies down. Murad himself had been training in the US for this plot. He names the buildings that would be targeted for attack: CIA headquarters, the Pentagon, an unidentified nuclear power plant, the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco, the Sears Tower, and the World Trade Center. 1995 In the wake of uncovering the Operation Bojinka plot, Philippine authorities find a letter on a computer disc written by the plotters of the failed 1993 WTC bombing. This letter apparently was never sent, but its contents will be revealed in 1998 congressional testimony. [US Congress, 2/24/1998] The Manila police chief also reports discovering a statement from bin Laden around this time that, although they failed to blow up the WTC in 1993, “on the second attempt they would be successful.” 1996 FBI fumbles flight school investigation and hijackers or potential hijackers begin training. June 1996 Khobar Towers bombed 1996 Flight 800 crashes....NOW counterterrorism funding is boosted 1996 bin Laden now becoming seen as biggest threat. Media starts using "al-Qaeda" 1998 FBI finally starts investigating Flight School attendees 1998: Indonisia claims they gave warning something like 9/11 will happen US learns bin Laden is considering attacks against NY, Washington CIA warns of militants flying bomb laden planes into WTC Aug 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania US attack not ready yet More...
copyright & usage
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics Hot Topics \| Top Topics \| This Week \| Subscribe \| Home
reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 12:02 PM by ThatsJustWeird
..... 1999 MI6, the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,” “possibly as flying bombs.” 1999 US intelligence learns of plans by an al-Qaeda member who is also a US citizen to fly a hang glider into the Egyptian Presidential Palace and then detonate the explosives he is carrying. The individual, who received hang glider training in the US, brings a hang glider back to Afghanistan, but various problems arise during the testing of the glider. This unnamed person is subsequently arrested and is in custody abroad. 1999 Sleeper Pilot is arrested July 1999 In a conversation recorded by US government agents as part of a sting operation, a Pakistani ISI agent named Rajaa Gulum Abbas points to the WTC and says, “Those towers are coming down.” He later makes two other references to an attack on the WTC Sept. 1999 Spectacular US attack is predicted. Dec. 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested before carrying out an attack at Los Angeles International Airport Dec. 1999 In the wake of the arrest of Ahmed Ressam (see December 14, 1999), FBI investigators work frantically to uncover more millennium plots before they are likely to take place at the end of the year. Documents found with Ressam lead to co-conspirators in New York, then Boston and Seattle. Enough people are arrested to prevent any attacks. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke later says, “I think a lot of the FBI leadership for the first time realized that ... there probably were al-Qaeda people in the United States. They realized that only after they looked at the results of the investigation of the millennium bombing plot.” [PBS Frontline, 10/3/2002] Yet Clinton’s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger later claims that the FBI will still repeatedly assure the Clinton White House until Clinton leaves office that al-Qaeda lacks the ability to launch a domestic strike 2000 - CIA begins surveillane of Atta 2000 Attack on USS The Sullivans fails 2000 Statue of Liberty named among other possible targets 2000 More flight school investigations April 2000 Niaz Khan, a British citizen originally from Pakistan, is recruited into an al-Qaeda plot. In early 2000 he is flown to Lahore, Pakistan, and then trains in a compound there for a week with others on how to hijack passenger airplanes. He trains on a mock cockpit of a 767 aircraft (an airplane type used on 9/11). He is taught hijacking techniques, including how to smuggle guns and other weapons through airport security and how to get into a cockpit. In April 2000 he flies to the US and told to meet with a contact. He says, “They said I would live there for a while and meet some other people and we would hijack a plane from JFK and fly it into a building.” [London Times, 5/9/2004] He has “no doubt” this is the 9/11 plot. However, Khan slips away and gambles away the money given to him by al-Qaeda. Afraid he would be killed for betraying al-Qaeda, he turns himself in to the FBI. For three weeks, FBI counterterrorism agents in Newark, New Jersey interview him. [MSNBC, 6/3/2004; Observer, 6/6/2004] One FBI agent recalls, “We were incredulous. Flying a plane into a building sounded crazy but we polygraphed him and he passed.” He was let go. FBI screws up yet again. Sept. 2000 Jordan Tells US of Connection Between Al-Marabh, Hijazi, and 9/11 Hijacker Oct. 2000 USS Cole attack 2001: New crew in town (Bush admin) 2001 DIA director warns of possible attack in US within the next 2 years 2001 Tenet warns congress of bin Laden March 2001 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey will mention in a public hearing, “In March 2001, another CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] item on the agenda mentions the possibility of alleged bin Laden interests in ‘targeting US passenger planes at the Chicago airport,’ end of quote.” [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] No newspaper has ever mentioned this warning, which presumably remained classified aside from this one accidental mention by Kerrey. March 2001 An intelligence source claims that a group of al-Qaeda operatives is planning to conduct an unspecified attack inside the US in April. One of the operatives allegedly resides in the US. There are also reports of planned attacks in California and New York State for the same month, though whether this is reference to the same plot is unclear. 2001 Bin Laden Tells Mother He Cannot Call Her Again Due to Upcoming ‘Great Events’ 2001 - US Customs investigates 2 of the hijackers April 2001 - Explicit warning from Afghanistan From April-July there are numours warnings. Why? earlier date for attacks were planned Warnings began coming in from other countries as well. One thing was missing though. A date. So...begin the debunking. Debunk these terrorist exsisted. Debunk they were planning this. Debunk the fact that they finally carried the attack out. Mod Edit: BB Code. [edit on 5/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 12:16 PM by diggs
What's your actual question? I don't get what you're trying to say.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 12:19 PM by TheTruthIsOutThere2012
hes basically saying that most attacks on the U.S. are setup...such as 9./11...
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 12:30 PM by diggs
Originally posted by TheTruthIsOutThere2012 hes basically saying that most attacks on the U.S. are setup...such as 9./11... Well I'd agree with him on that one! Especially on WTC '93: Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast; Plan to Foil Bomb Used at Trade Center By RALPH BLUMENTHAL. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 28, 1993. pg. A1, 2 pgs Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. - NY Times Archive [rest...] The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said. newsmine.org...
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 12:36 PM by Griff
Just because the government knew these attacks would happen by al-Qaeda doesn't leave out their possible involvement. Funny how we knew this was comming but we still couldn't stop it? We've known since 1995...that's 6 years that we didn't put new transponders on planes....that's 6 years that we couldn't come up with a plan for Norad to foil this plot.....that's 6 years etc., etc. You have voted ThatsJustWeird for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month. I gave you a way above for your time in researching this. Good job.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 04:02 PM by bsbray11
CIA --> ISI --> "al Qaeda" The CIA links to the predominantly Islamic ISI, which links to the Taliban, and al Qaeda, or "the database." [by Wayne Madsen Report - November 18, 2005] Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence. [...] "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money." www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... Also: 100777.com... Check out this page for a great number of ties between 9/11 terrorists and the ISI, and the ISI to the US. Note that there were also direct connections between the 9/11 hijackers and US intelligence agencies directly, but these aren't dealt with here. The above link will take you to a lot of good information, nonetheless. Bottom line, the ISI is full of Islamic fundamentalists in prominent intelligence positions. They work with intelligence from both Islamic terrorist cells based out of countries like Afghanistan, and United States agencies and military. The ISI has been shown to have top generals with monetary ties to the alleged hijackers of 9/11, and even encouraged Afghanistan and the Taliban to resist US forces after 9/11 rather than turn over bin Laden. Through all of this, and it continues today because of the very nature of the fundamental philosophies of ISI officers (again, predominantly Islamic fundamentalism supporting the Taliban), the CIA continues to cultivate, in its own words, "close links" with the ISI in Pakistan. All the US has done is pressure the ISI to symbolically remove from power the most obvious criminals, such as one Lt. Gen. Mahmood, who actually sent Atta some $100,000 leading up to 9/11, and allegedly helped encourage Afghanistan to protect bin Laden. The rest of the organization remains intact, and even Mahmood is now working with a business that by its nature maintains close ties with the Pakistani government. The absolute best you can assume from that is extreme negligence on the part of the US government. The worst case scenario, and yet apparently the most probable because of direct US relations to the alleged hijackers, is that the ISI is only being used as a middle man between US factions and fundamentalist Islamic terrorist cells. In no way do the terrorist's existence take away from the evidence of an inside job on 9/11.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 04:50 PM by Tasketo
Its sad, while everyone is debating on weather or not bombs were used to bring the towers down, people over look things like this. Great work. [edit on 5-6-2006 by Tasketo]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-6-2006 @ 06:26 PM by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Originally posted by Griff Just because the government knew these attacks would happen by al-Qaeda doesn't leave out their possible involvement. Funny how we knew this was comming but we still couldn't stop it? We've known since 1995...that's 6 years that we didn't put new transponders on planes....that's 6 years that we couldn't come up with a plan for Norad to foil this plot.....that's 6 years etc., etc. Its the first and strongest theory Ive held so far. If Arab Terrorists were involved, it certainly does not rule out a bigger part played by the government. The government could have known the attacks were comming, and did everything in their power to ensure that the attacks went unhindered, including stopping key investigations the Feds were carrying out on suspicous people and making sure that air defense was unable to respond. It also doesnt rule out the gov "helping them out" by providing funding in a discreet manner, planting bombs in the WTC, or providing training.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 01:58 PM by ThatsJustWeird
sigh Quick question. What's the purpose of allowing some terrorist attacks and thwarting others? Bojinka would have killed more people than 9/11 and affected more countries. So why would the government allow 9/11 and not Bojinka? (lol, this should be interesting) Oh! Another quick question. When you say "government"....what are you talking about? The government is huge. And BS, all that has been talked about in several of these threads. Please review. Diggs, it's not a question. You believe 9/11 was done by the government right? So show us indisputable proof that it was the government and not terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks. Since the early 90s (even before) terrorists have been carrying out attacks on US intrests. Please tell us why they would just suddenly stop.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 02:19 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird sigh Quick question. What's the purpose of allowing some terrorist attacks and thwarting others? Bojinka would have killed more people than 9/11 and affected more countries. So why would the government allow 9/11 and not Bojinka? Governmental factions weren't behind Bojinka, which, I suppose, you take as proof that they were therefore not behind 9/11? That's called a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy. An example: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large." The logic there does not follow. This whole thread is an example of such logic. And BS, all that has been talked about in several of these threads. Please review. Can you point some out for me? You know how threads tend to wander.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 03:13 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11 Governmental factions weren't behind Bojinka, which, I suppose, you take as proof that they were therefore not behind 9/11? That's called a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy. This whole thread is an example of such logic. lol <-- seriously. I'm really laughing out loud at you. So tell us BS. Which terrorists attacks/plots were really government attacks/plots and which weren't. And please tell us how you came to that conclusion. If terrorists were planning to carry out Bojinka, why do you believe they wouldn't want to carry out 9/11 which was part of Bojinka? Can you point some out for me? You know how threads tend to wander. Yes they do and I really don't feel like going through them now so.... Basic stuff about al Q: en.wikipedia.org... Some have said that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[5] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channeled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself [6]. Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s[,] he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians".[7] For a while Osama worked at the Services Office working with Abdallah Azzam on Jihad Magazine, a magazine that gave information about the war with the soviets and interviewed mujahideen. As time passed, Aymen Al Zawahiri encouraged Osama to split away from Abdallah Azzam. Osama formed his own army of mujahideen and fought the soviets. One of his most significant battles was the battle of Jaji, which was not a major fight, but it earned him a reputation as a fighter. Formation of al-Qaeda By 1988, bin Laden had split from the MAK and established a new militant group which was later dubbed al-Qaeda by the U.S. government, which included many of the more militant MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, and bin Laden was lauded as a mujahideen hero in Saudi Arabia. Gov site so.... (it's no worse than those sites you get your stuff from) usinfo.state.gov... "While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'" ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.] Ayman al-Zawahiri: "While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin's relationship with the United States was totally different." "... The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid." "The Arab mujahidin did not confine themselves to financing their own jihad but also carried Muslim donations to the Afghan mujahidin themselves. Usama Bin Ladin has apprised me of the size of the popular Arab support for the Afghan mujahidin that amounted, according to his sources, to $200 million in the form of military aid alone in 10 years. As far as links between the CIA ISI and al Q....your links didn't really show anything. Ummm....Yeah the CIA deals with the ISI. They deal with every intel agency around the globe. Are you saying the CIA controls the ISI? Or what? If the ISI has several bad apples is this somehow the CIA's fault? It's no secret Pakistan AND the Saudis were in the same bed... Saudi and Pak make secret deals “Saudi Arabia provid[es] funds and equipment to the Taliban and probably directly to bin Laden, and [doesn’t] interfere with al-Qaeda’s efforts to raise money, recruit and train operatives, and establish cells throughout the kingdom, commission and US officials [say]. Pakistan provide[s] even more direct assistance, its military and intelligence agencies often coordinating efforts with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, they [say].” The two countries will become targets of al-Qaeda attacks only after they launch comprehensive efforts to eliminate the organization’s domestic cells. In Saudi Arabia, such efforts won’t begin until late 2003. Don't think we weren't prepared to take care of Pakistan... 9/12 Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visits Mahmood and offers him the choice: “Help us and breathe in the 21st century along with the international community or be prepared to live in the Stone Age.” Not sure how this is proof of the govs involvement....
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 03:28 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird So tell us BS. Which terrorists attacks/plots were really government attacks/plots and which weren't. And please tell us how you came to that conclusion. First, explain to me why non-sequitur is considered fallacious logic. And then explain to me how the logic you're using is any different. If terrorists were planning to carry out Bojinka, why do you believe they wouldn't want to carry out 9/11 which was part of Bojinka? Please offer something conclusive to show that 9/11 was just a "part of Bojinka". Yes they do and I really don't feel like going through them now so.... You pretty much just posted all of the same stuff I did, but emphasized different points and came to a different conclusion. It's pretty much summed up here: Gov site so.... (it's no worse than those sites you get your stuff from) usinfo.state.gov... [...] The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). The US military/intel wanted the Afghans to do something that benefited their interests, so we paid the ISI to have things so arranged so we couldn't be directly blamed.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 03:48 PM by Enkidu
Originally posted by TheTruthIsOutThere2012 hes basically saying that most attacks on the U.S. are setup...such as 9./11... Or maybe this. Say I predict a huge earthquake in San Francisco. Well, of course, the chances of such a thing are pretty good, just like there was an pretty good chance that terrorists would eventually hit a large U.S. target. So I keep saying there's going to be an earthquake, and maybe there are a few small ones, and the people at FEMA and elsewhere kind of pay attention and they kind of don't. After all, here's this guy predicting a big SF earthquake, and we have a hundred other people also predicting earthquakes in St. Louis, Los Angeles, Dallas, Knoxville, New York, Chicago, and a dozen other places. So when a huge earthquake finally slams San Francisco, does that allow me to jump up and point fingers at FEMA, saying that they were lazy and lax and ignored the obvious warnings I gave them for years? The United States is a pretty free country, and at any given time there are all kinds of shady people running around planning monkey business. If you don't have anything on them at the time, or if they're just "associated" with somebody, you can't arrest and hold them. Personally, I think this is a good thing that helps keep me from spending time in jail for jaywalking or looking at the "wrong" website. In fact, I am willing to have things like the WTC destruction happen if it allows me to keep the government from watching my every move, restricting what I'm able to express in public, and tossing me into prison without representation. Everybody always talks about the "price of freedom." Well, that's a price I'm willing to pay. We can always rebuild buildings. And the people who died there did it much more in the name of freedom than those poor suckers in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are we in Afghanistan for, again? I forget.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 03:48 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11 First, explain to me why non-sequitur is considered fallacious logic. And then explain to me how the logic you're using is any different. What are you talking about? What logic am I using? All I did was post a timeline of terrorist activities and showed what they were planning before and up to 9/11. All I'm asking you to do is show that these terrorists weren't doing all that and it was really the government, as you all have claimed. (nice way to try and skip my question ) Please offer something conclusive to show that 9/11 was just a "part of Bojinka". Read the links and the links in the links. It may not have been called Bojinka but the same players were involved. Do you think they just did away with their plans? Yes they do and I really don't feel like going through them now so.... You pretty much just posted all of the same stuff I did, but emphasized different points and came to a different conclusion. Umm no. How about answering my question... How is all of what you posted and all of what I posted proof of the govs. involvement in 9/11?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 04:13 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird What are you talking about? What logic am I using? All I did was post a timeline of terrorist activities and showed what they were planning before and up to 9/11. All I'm asking you to do is show that these terrorists weren't doing all that and it was really the government, as you all have claimed. When have I claimed that all terrorism is actually the government's work? Can you stop putting words in my mouth? What you're getting at is that 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack because Islamic terrorist attacks occur. Right? That's a non-sequitur. I'm sorry if you don't know what that means or don't understand the logic you're using, but until you realize what a non-sequitur is, and compare it to your argument here, there's no point in me addressing you. It may not have been called Bojinka but the same players were involved. Prove it. Bring out the source documentation and show all of the supporting evidence for all of this. Show us what institutions are telling us what did or did not happen. How is all of what you posted and all of what I posted proof of the govs. involvement in 9/11? It wasn't intended to be proof of government involvement. It was proof of government involvement with the ISI, which is known to work with Islamic terrorists. And when I say work, I mean close ties and lots of $$$. [edit on 6-6-2006 by bsbray11]
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 04:39 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11 When have I claimed that all terrorism is actually the government's work? Can you stop putting words in my mouth? Ahhh I see. You can't read very well. It's cool man. We all have to start somewhere. They have books and tutoring to help you out. Anyway, in word you'd be able to understand. You're claiming that the 9/11 attacks were the work of the government. What I did is show you how the terrorists were working on and planning 9/11 since the early 90s. I'm simply asking you since you believe the government was behind the 9/11 attacks to prove the terrorists were not planning 9/11. Please show me that it was the government and not terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks as I have shown. Everything that I wrote. Prove it wrong. What you're getting at is that 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack because Islamic terrorist attacks occur. Right? Where did I say or suggest that? What I did was write a timeline of the terrorists who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. That is interesting though. Terrorist attacks occur right? So why do you believe 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack even though terrorists have been planning something like that for years? Prove it. Bring out the source documentation and show all of the supporting evidence for all of this. Show us what institutions are telling us what did or did not happen. Why did you cut off my quote, I'll quote it again so you can't miss it. Read the links and the links in the links. It wasn't intended to be proof of government involvement. It was proof of government involvement with the ISI, which is known to work with Islamic terrorists. And when I say work, I mean close ties and lots of $$$. But this thread is about the 9/11 attacks. The CIA works with alot of people who work with people who work with people who aren't very "good." The ISI is the CIA of Pakistan, why would you think that the CIA doesn't work with the ISI? And again, are you suggesting that the CIA controls the ISI? If not, what's your point?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 09:23 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird What I did is show you how the terrorists were working on and planning 9/11 since the early 90s. I fail to see where you've conclusively shown this. I'm simply asking you since you believe the government was behind the 9/11 attacks to prove the terrorists were not planning 9/11. If you've already proven that the terrorists were planning 9/11, then why would you ask me to disprove the notion? Not that asking a negative is generally accepted argument anyway. Let's see if you can prove there was a connection. If you can't, I won't have to disprove you. That's usually how it works anyway man. Please show me that it was the government and not terrorists that carried out the 9/11 attacks as I have shown. Everything that I wrote. Prove it wrong. What exactly am I proving wrong? That there have been terrorist plots in the past to hijack planes? I've known this. You still haven't connected any of this to 9/11. It's your thread. Back it up. Why did you cut off my quote, I'll quote it again so you can't miss it. Read the links and the links in the links. Dude, why don't you just post it if you know what you're talking about? It's not that hard. I'm asking for your evidence. I'm not going to go do your freaking research for you. If you already have something some meat on it, that you can support, then what are you waiting for? [edit on 6-6-2006 by bsbray11]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 09:26 PM by Poison
Originally posted by TheTruthIsOutThere2012 hes basically saying that most attacks on the U.S. are setup...such as 9./11... Lol It's all apart of the masterplan man!
copyright & usage

reply posted on 6-6-2006 @ 10:51 PM by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11 I fail to see where you've conclusively shown this. Of course, and you more than likely will never see. You'll believe the gov was behind the attacks no matter what. I honestly don't care. If you've already proven that the terrorists were planning 9/11, then why would you ask me to disprove the notion? Not that asking a negative is generally accepted argument anyway. Since you and other believe so strongly that it was the gov. Disproving that terrorists didn't plan and carry out 9/11 should be easy right? Well then let's see that evidence. Let's see if you can prove there was a connection. If you can't, I won't have to disprove you. That's usually how it works anyway man. Connection between what? What exactly am I proving wrong? That there have been terrorist plots in the past to hijack planes? I've known this. You still haven't connected any of this to 9/11. It's your thread. Back it up. Did you read anything I wrote?? I'll ask it again since you like ignoring questions... By your own admittance terrorists have been planning to carry out a 9/11 attack for years. What evidence do you have that they scraped those plans? What makes you think that 9/11 which was something they have been trying to do for years was anything other than what they have been trying to do for years? Dude, why don't you just post it if you know what you're talking about? It's not that hard. I'm asking for your evidence. I'm not going to go do your freaking research for you. I HAVE posted it. If you want more info read what I have posted. I've DONE the research it's up to you to read it. It's way too much in a thread that's why I said go to the places so you can read everything for yourself. If you already have something some meat on it, that you can support, then what are you waiting for? This thread isn't about me proving terrorist did it. It's about you proving the didn't. I'll say that again so it'll sink in... This thread is NOT for me to prove that terrorist did it. I'm asking you to prove the DIDN'T do it. If you can. Prove that all the intel coming from all over the world was wrong. Prove to me that the terrorists just scraped their plans and hoped the government would do the very thing they were planning. [edit on 6-6-2006 by bsbray11]
copyright & usage