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.

 

Osama Bin Laden and September 11

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
If you haven't figured out that bin laden had virtually nothing to do with 9-11 then you haven't done much more than use the MSM as your source. That is your own failing not the OPs. That he denied involvement from the get-go is also 'old' news. Only CNN reported that they 'took credit' initially - Fox followed shortly thereafter (or was it the other way around - makes little difference since they are both complicit in the 'massaging' of the truth).

This statement was in fact released early on after the event but was suppressed in the US media for previously stated reasons (secret messages - uh huh). Nothing within this statement is truly 'news', only that after 7 years we finally get to see what it said. The rest of you who seem to be spouting media talk, keep at it, it only makes you look that much more like you're really 'into' this conspiracy crap.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Maxmars]




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


As you seem to have no problems with believing your own pet theories whilst ridiculing those of others, I thought you might like to have a read of Hans Blix' Report to the UN on Iraq's WMD's which basically refutes everything you've just said.

Real evidence - you might like to try it some time, instead of a murky photot that could be of anything and anywhere.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


You want evidence?? Then learn to speak Arabic, because apparently Bin Laden's "confession tape" isn't questioned as far as "evidence" goes.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
As you seem to have no problems with believing your own pet theories whilst ridiculing those of others

Huh? I only posted a picture, so how did I post a 'pet theory' and ridicule 'others'?
I don't think you know what you are talking about.



Hans Blix' Report to the UN on Iraq's WMD's which basically refutes everything you've just said.

Again, I only posted a picture and did not say anything.
Do you even know what thread you are on.



Real evidence - you might like to try it some time, instead of a murky photot that could be of anything and anywhere.

Real evidence? Is that what you call your argument.
Now that's funny.
Try some of these on for size:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

Thank you, have a nice day.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 




Yeah right - government reports and government sponsored propaganda being used as "proof"

Of course an independant qualified UN inspector couldn't possibly be right.

Tell the truth, why are all your sources are government ones anyway

They're PROVEN LIARS.

Like I said, show proof - not propaganda - show me a chief weapons inspector who said saddam had the weapons.

Yep, I tried it on for size, and it looked so silly, I'm still laughing - a bit like wearing a clown suit.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Yeah right - government reports and government sponsored propaganda being used as "proof"

Official reports from multiple governments including generals in Iraq is not good enough for you I see.
Well, that is just sad. You call it propaganda yet for some reason you believe all the anti-U.S. propaganda is somehow credible. Well, that says a lot about you and it's not good.

You don't see truth and facts even when it slaps you in the face. You ignore it because it does not fit into your deluded view. Pathetic.


Of course an independant qualified UN inspector couldn't possibly be right.

Look, a UN inspector goes in and says if the weapons are there or not. They have no idea why or why not. The UN inspector did not see any weapons. Ok, so what? We already know that. Now, you refuse to accept that the weapons were moved before hand, so of course the UN inspector would find nothing.


Like I said, show proof - not propaganda

Well, thats what I did, yet you refuse to accept it even when it slaps you in the face. Again, a UN inspector is useless regarding this. The inspector only says if the weapons are there or not when he is present. So since the weapons were moved, of course he would say he could not find any. I should you all the proof that they were moved, yet you refuse to accept it.


Yep, I tried it on for size, and it looked so silly, I'm still laughing - a bit like wearing a clown suit.

Since I just shredded your logic and showed you proof, I guess you should take off the clown suit which you are so used to wearing.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


I fail to see how falsified documents constitute proof - it's quite clear that those documents were faked and leaked by shrubs lot in order to try and cover his ass when no WMDs were found, as well as which, shrub is trying to use this as a pretext to bomb syria on israels orders.

As for the clown suit, I'd suggest it fits you rather better - the red matches your eyes.





[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I fail to see how falsified documents constitute proof

Care to provide proof that the official document by numerous governments and sources are false? Or is this what you normally do when you realize you may be incorrect and wish not to face it because you have been slapped in the face with truth and logic.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I just become giddy whenever someone will in one post shudder at the idea of globalization or the NWO, and then in another thread pat the UN on the back and discuss them and their beliefs in reverent, hushed tones.


Did you ever stop to ask yourself why Russia, France, and China were so greatly opposed to Rolf Ekeus' appointment as cheif of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, yet they were very supportive of Hans Blix? Isn't in convenient that the two most vocal opponents on the UNSC against disarmament of Iraq just so happened to put their support behind a man who, ultimately, attempted to toe the line they had drawn in the sand?

As for believing government data and reports, I think your attitude is humorous. Only a damned fool would place their faith in faceless, unknown internet talking heads while trying to paint all government reports as untrustworthy. Again, I am amazed at how one tiny possible inconsistancy in the "official" story suddenly makes the whole official report false in your eyes, whereas these theories of cover-ups and collusion that are riddled with huge gaping holes are taken as the gospel, and the huge holes are merely glossed over under the blanket of "Well, we don't yet hve enough information to fill those in, yet." 99.9% of the time the answer that makes the most sense and is the most transparent is the truth, to toss out that 99.9% because you're so busy chasing down the 0.1% which are inconsistant is mind boggling to me.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Do you have any proof they are real?

Do you have an uneditted copy in your own hands, right now, verified by a state department official and an official document archivist?

No, you have links that claim to have original documents, and any fool can see they are as fake as shrubs reasons for going to war.

Hey, I got a scanner, and photoshop and can rustle up a few "official" documents in no time - the same as "free republic" did.

The level pro-war people will stoop to is amazing.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Its a fact that Osama and his group were responsible for 9/11. Its a fact that Osama admitted and explained why they attacked the U.S. It has nothing to do with freedom hating as Bush has mentioned, it has to do with support of Israel and American presence in the Middle East as Osama and Al Qaeda has pointed out for many years. All these attacks started when American troops were presented in Saudi Arabia back in 1990. The first Al Qaeda attack was in 93, 3 years afterwards. Since then more attacks came, the 1996 Khobar Towers, 98 American embassies, 2000 Cole attack, and finally 2001. You think we got the message in the 90s? But nooooo, so what do you think Al Qaeda did that would make us aware of them when we ignore their petty attacks in the 90s? 9/11 thats how.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Do you have any proof they are real?

Do you have an uneditted copy in your own hands, right now, verified by a state department official and an official document archivist?

No, you have links that claim to have original documents, and any fool can see they are as fake as shrubs reasons for going to war.

Hey, I got a scanner, and photoshop and can rustle up a few "official" documents in no time - the same as "free republic" did.

The level pro-war people will stoop to is amazing.





Oh boy, now you are just being a silly little kid.
Using your logic, nothing on ATS, nothing we see on TV, nothing we read in the newspaper or internet, or nothing we hear on the radio would be credible because we don't have the actual documents in our hands. There would be no sources that would be credible. This is just ridiculous logic and I think you know it. You need to face reality that your views are wrong and nothing but anti-U.S. propaganda. Do you have the actual documents stating your case? Didn't think so.
PATHECTIC!!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
the article says "50" trucks, according to the satellite analyst. I didn't count them, but there's sure a lot more than 50 trucks in that photo.

So, what I'd like to see is this "clear and irrefutable" evidence that OBL was responsible for 9/11, as the only "evidence" we've been presented are video and audio releases that are easily disputed, from either perspective. In my opinion, there's way too many people taking the fact that the FBI said they have evidence, as evidence on it's own. The only clear fact here is that it cannot be proven that OBL was responsible.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Its a fact that Osama and his group were responsible for 9/11. Its a fact that Osama admitted and explained why they attacked the U.S. It has nothing to do with freedom hating as Bush has mentioned, it has to do with support of Israel and American presence in the Middle East as Osama and Al Qaeda has pointed out for many years. All these attacks started when American troops were presented in Saudi Arabia back in 1990. The first Al Qaeda attack was in 93, 3 years afterwards. Since then more attacks came, the 1996 Khobar Towers, 98 American embassies, 2000 Cole attack, and finally 2001. You think we got the message in the 90s? But nooooo, so what do you think Al Qaeda did that would make us aware of them when we ignore their petty attacks in the 90s? 9/11 thats how.


Can you share these facts you claim? I'm not disputing the other attacks but on 9/11, Condoleeza Rice said there are facts that show Bin Laden was behind 9/11, she was stating that in the days after 9/11. To this date, the US government has never presented these facts to anyone, it's been 7 years! Anything that has come out since has been claimed as further evidence, but still, the initial evidence they claim has never been released. Further to that, Bush himself has said he doesn't care about Bin Laden. Wow! The man who attacked our country and has caused no end of problems since is not even a concern of the President? All this evidence and he's of no concern?

Furthermore, the British government have confirmed that they got it wrong in regard to WMDs, so to claim that other countries know there were WMDs in Iraq is wrong because the British government, an ally, says the opposite, so they clearly don;t think the photo posted here is evidence.

Finally, we invaded an entire country because they supposedly aided Al-Queda, they didn't actively conduct the attack. We oversaw the President of Iraq getting hanged for his alleged role, yet if we have so much evidence on Bin Laden, why is he still free?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
And if we're so sure that all these weapons were moved to Syria, why then, don't we go to Syria and find the flippin bombs? I mean, the mere suggestion that WMD's were in Iraq was enough to justify an invasion, so what's changed? Does Syria have a special WMD pass? I postulate we're no longer looking for WMD's because there are none. Either they were never there in the first place, or they're safely back in U.S. storage facilities, where they came from in the first place. After all, one thing we do know is that the only WMD's we know for sure Saddam had (because he used them), came from the U.S.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Actually, I DO have a copy of Hans Blix report, obtained under the FOIA.

You have nothing, nada, zip - only badly photoshopped "documents" from a dub shrub website.

And a dodgy photo that could be anything.

I can go down the road tomorrow calling cats sheep - doesn't mean it's true.

And nor is saying that shrub stinks anti-US, it's anti-BUSH

Of course as usual you start crying about everyone hating the US when they are opposed to what the liar-decider has done.

Face facts, the man is a liar, a con-artist, a shill - and an embarressment to the good people of the US.



[edit on 29/5/2008 by budski]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


english.aljazeera.net...


But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.


And to the answer about why Osama is still free, think of geography in Afghanistan and Pakistan. How long did it take to find Saddam Hussein with about 150,000 troops in Iraq? Saddam was not let free, hes just not making it easy to find him. Same for Osama.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


That's a very pretty "statement" which could have been written by anyone - however it's NOT proof that he actually did the crime, only that he (or whoever wrote/broadcast the words) wanted to.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


It was written by Al Jazeera translating a video of Osama Bin Laden.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Of course it was


And the tooth fairy did the lighting for the video, and the easter bunny was the sound guy.

Some people will believe ANYTHING



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join