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.

 

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant


www.prisonplanet.com

The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.

In a London Times report, Louai al-Sakka, now incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, claims that he trained six of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp in the mountains near Istanbul from 1999-2000.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Hot on the heels of this thread comes more news about the alleged hijackers and who trained them.

There's a link to The Times, but I can't get it to work at the moment

It's a very interesting story all the same.

Could the plot be unravelling?

Here's The Times Link

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Edit to insert Times link

[edit on 27/11/2007 by budski]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Hi Bud
Howyadoin'?

So, lets see if I have this right.

Following the links we have:

1. A questionable website (Prisonplanet)

2. quoting an anonymous blog

3. Which quotes a periodical thats existed 1 year (but PP claims its a prominent news source).

4. The ghost author of the article

5. (Ercan Gun) seems to be a nobody from nowhere with no credentials.

6. He and wrote the article in '05, but no link was provided to his original article.

7. Provides no links or credible sources to back up his claim.

8. This article has not been quoted or followed up on for 2 years for some reason.


Does that about cover the evidence presented, or am I missing something representing even a hint of credibility somewhere?



[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Who's presenting evidence?

I posted the story - it's up to others to make their own minds up, I just thought it was interesting.

If you got a problem with the story, write to the site owners and the Times, because it ain't my doing




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Relax bud, I ain't dissin' you.

Just looking for a spec of credibility to the story you posted.

Got any?


I didn't see anything about him being a CIA agent in The Times article.

(I posted a link to it on your previous thread before you posted this BTW).

The info appears only in the PP article as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something?

[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I didn't think you were, that's why I winked


The Times is usually pretty reliable and doesn't usually resort to the tabloid sensationalism sometimes seen.
Having said that, it's owned by News Corporation Group .ed by Rupert Murdoch - not my favourite person in the media world.

This
I also find quite interesting



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Why do you keep bringing up the Times instead of Prisonplanet.

Where did the Times say that he was a paid CIA informant?


(Hint) It doesn't.

[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Frankly, I don't care - the times was an informative post backing up what was said on pp.
The Zaman story also backs it up.

If you don't like the sources, that's up to you - I stand by them, and will not see this derailed and/or trolled by someone muddying the waters to distract from the OP.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

This
I also find quite interesting


What I find interesting about that is who they quoted for their info.


[Zaman, 8/14/2005]


The same unreferenced source that PP quotes.


Frankly, I don't care - the times was an informative post backing up what was said on pp.


No, the Times did not back up PP's story that he was a CIA agent.


The Zaman story also backs it up.


Thats the same source. Your running in circles. Articles quoting each other with no references, no links, no credible backup.


I stand by them, and will not see this derailed and/or trolled by someone muddying the waters to distract from the OP.


Actually, rather than trolling, I was researching it for some spec of credibility. If I find something that does list credible references I would most certainly post it here for all to see.

So far, I don't see anything but them quoting each other, all falling back to the same unreferenced ghost writer from '05.

I would hope that you don't consider researching the facts surrounding the story you posted to be trolling. Instead, it would seem rather flattering that someone is taking the time to look at your post and research it, cooperatively with the rest of ATS.



[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Credibility?

And yet you deny that Zaman is a credible source?

The paper is run (indirectly) by Fethullah Gülen, who is a respected islamic scholar and writer, and who may be controversial - from an islamic perspective.

I say again, I stand by the sources.

Don't like it?
Don't read it.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Credibility?

And yet you deny that Zaman is a credible source?

Don't like it?
Don't read it.


Baring something I've not seen yet, the author and the article appear to have no credibility. Please, if you have information that provides some credibility to the story we would all love to see it so we could find out more.

Rather than not reading it, I perfer to dig into it to try and find out if its true or not. As I've already said, if I find something credible to it, I will certainly post it for everyone to see. No problem. The reverse is also true. I expect most any ATS member would do the same.

Deny ignorance and all that stuff, right?



[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by makeitso
 


Absolutely - but considering some of the sources used in your threads, I find your stance on this funny, to say the least.
It merely reinforces my opinion that for some reason you don't like the subject matter and are looking to derail.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Thats sad.

But, since thats the case you feel that way, and its your thread Bud, I will desist from posting on this thread and let you and it go your merry way.


Have a good one guys.


[edit on 11/27/07 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Post away,
nobody's asking you not to, but not one of your posts has been on topic.

I have some doubts about whether the man is a CIA informant, but frankly, nothing would surprise me while bush is in charge and his dad is advising him.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It definitely seems like misinformation and flat out lies. As makeitso has already pointed out with a great list the problems with this story are massive. This might as well be written by Sorcha Faal. Prison Planet tends to do this a lot. They will pick up any story that fits their agenda without doing much fact checking on the story.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


All I'm going to say is that I've seen threads with far less evidence (reliable or not) flourish, simply because people wanted to believe them.

This one doesn't seem to fall into that category.

Zaman is at least as reliable as fox news.

Mind you, so is 2000AD




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I'll argue both sides. Feel free to answer my questions.

PrisonPlanet isn't credible. It's only a credible source for lies. Alex Jones is a fraud. PrisonPlanet lies have been exposed. Let's not use that as a source for anything unless we want to violate the T&C.

Now, 'makeitso', can you prove the other source isn't credible? Can we get some background information from you about that source? Or is it because it's not a neat flash layout site with a clean cut logo and a multi-billionaire owner that makes it not credible?

Also, what makes CNN or FOX 'credible'? I've always wondered that. They never back up their information. They don't give a source. They post it on their page as if it's true news and everybody eats it up as so. I'm not saying it's not true, but as long as we're questioning credibility based up on back up sources, spread the speculation wealth around.

Finally - do we even need to question the sources? Even further, do we even need to be having this discussion? Anyone who has paid attention knows the CIA played some role in 9/11. Whether this guy is truly the trainer and is truly employed by the CIA, it doesn't really matter. But I'd think anyone with a brain and a healthy dose of skepticism would be able to figure this out and connect the dots between Al Qaeda and the CIA.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   
what i personally find interesting is that the guy claimed to have trained them 99-2000 and bush is still to blame. not saying he's not but man, neat trick huh?


as far as source credibility i totally see both points on this one but budski raises a great point, people tend to only listen to sources that support their theories.

i mean take the rest of 9-11. everyone says the nist report was a joke yet its the most often quoted source for anything...so which is it? its a lie or its got accurate data in it?

dunno, just intersting to me is all.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the guy claimed to have trained them 99-2000 and bush is still to blame. not saying he's not but man, neat trick huh?


No, because who ever blames Bush for 9/11 and thinks it goes no further than him is an idiot.

Sorry for the insult to anyone who took it offensive, but it just seems so stupid to me to think Bush had anything to do with the planning of those attacks, even if it was an inside job (which I obviously think it was). And a lot of 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' DO blame him!

It frustrates me.

It goes so much higher than that, which makes the date of 99-2000 very plausible.

[edit on 11/28/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


well we may not agree on most of the particulars but i do agree with the whole its not all bush's fault idea.

of course that could be because im more in the let it happen due to gross negligence crowd and think that most of the coverup (which i wont even try to deny there seems to be) is simply a case of covering their collective backsides and trying to turn it to their advantage by using it as an excuse to wage their version of the cold war.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join