TA-THREATS: New bin Laden Tape Aired Offering Truce With European Countries

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

I didn't say it was a conspiracy theory. I believe he's talking out of his ass.

Good for you Esoterica. The same could be said of you.

Care to show me anything that supports the story of this supposed English teacher, who uses some of the most horrid english I've ever read (there are palces and times to use '...' and totally capitalize words ie 'NOT', and none of them are where he used them).

Do your own research.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Esoterica
Care to show me anything that supports the story [Edited on 4-15-2004 by Esoterica]

Remote controlled planes? Ok, then how do you explain the passengers calling up on their cell phones telling of the hijackers and the situation?

The cell phone calls were faked. Hate to break it to you. As to the rest of your comments, there's no point. You've bought the fiction hook, line and sinker. Congratulations.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Good for you Esoterica. The same could be said of you.

And that justifies him doing it...how?

Again, name calling is not a defense, it just shows a lack of one.

Do your own research.

I did, and found absolutely nothing of value.

But it is not my job to do the research. If you wish someone to agree with you, it is your responsibility to provide the reasons why.

Here, let's see how this works.

Esoterica: "The world is flat. "
ECK and mepatriot: "Hey, prove it to us."
Esoterica: "I'm right. Go do your own research. You'll find out I'm correct."
ECK and mepatriot: "But we did...and we didn't find anything.
Esoterica: "Quiet, you sheeple. By the way, I was told this by a prominent scientist. I won't provide any proof of my correspondence or proof he even exits, you need to do that yourself. But trust me, I tell the truth. It was in a Japanese newspaper. Lucky me, it's very difficult for you to actually get ahold of it, otherwise, you might prove me wrong. But I'm not wrong, trust me."

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Facefirst

Originally posted by Esoterica
Care to show me anything that supports the story [Edited on 4-15-2004 by Esoterica]

Remote controlled planes? Ok, then how do you explain the passengers calling up on their cell phones telling of the hijackers and the situation?

The cell phone calls were faked. Hate to break it to you. As to the rest of your comments, there's no point. You've bought the fiction hook, line and sinker. Congratulations.

[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

That is assnine and complete bunk.

You are going to tell me that the Solicitor General Ted Olson did not recognize his own wife's voice when she called him from the airplane. Her name is Barbara Olson, look it up.

And you are going to tell me that they planted the bodies of those people in the pentagon?

One more thing, you made the allegation without providing any proof?

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Facefirst]

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Facefirst]

Give it up, folks, you'll never get any proof out of these CT loonies, because they have none. The cell phone calls were faked????? That's interesting, since the private phone companies can trace them. Boy, there must be a LOT of people in on this conspiracy! What about all the airport workers and family members who watched people get on those planes?

Why would you stage an attack with 4 planes when one would do the job just as well, with 75% less risk of being exposed? There are so many holes in this CT argument that it would take hours just to post them all.

Where are all the people who were on those 4 planes? Who in the airline companies got bought off so the govt could put the remote control equipment on board?

I could ask one hundred similar questions. One could go on and on, but why bother, just ignore these idiots, and their agenda.

Originally posted by kricket
Give it up, folks, you'll never get any proof out of these CT loonies, because they have none. The cell phone calls were faked????? That's interesting, since the private phone companies can trace them. Boy, there must be a LOT of people in on this conspiracy! What about all the airport workers and family members who watched people get on those planes?

Why would you stage an attack with 4 planes when one would do the job just as well, with 75% less risk of being exposed? There are so many holes in this CT argument that it would take hours just to post them all.

Where are all the people who were on those 4 planes? Who in the airline companies got bought off so the govt could put the remote control equipment on board?

I could ask one hundred similar questions. One could go on and on, but why bother, just ignore these idiots, and their agenda.

Now that you mention it, I probably could get them to believe the world is flat, provided I say the government is trying to cover it up

Maybe this was a late Al Qaeda April Fool's joke. Do hardcore murderous fundamentalist terrorist organizations have a sense of humour?

I mean, does bin Laden really expect Britain and Japan and Poland and the rest of the Coalition to say, "Well, hey, this sounds like a fair, reasonable deal. Take it easy, America, and good luck with everything!" and just pull out of Iraq?

I mean, doesn't the UK itself have a pretty sad frickin record of injustice and occupation in the Middle East in the not so distant past? Didn't they themselves carve up most of the states, including Iraq?

Are they suddenly going to side with Al Qaeda and say, "Pfft, Western Civilization, who needs it anyway. Just give us a good price on oil, Sammy"?

Can even, say, Micronesia (!) decide to pull out on it's own and make the deal? Wouldn't it be treated like a total leper by the rest of the international community for making a deal with a terrorist organization? Rightfully treated as a leper, I might add.

I don't agree with what Bush said when he said "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". That's a little broad, and there's SO much middle ground there. Us who, us the Bush Administration or us the people of the United States? But with Al Qaeda, there's no middle ground. If you're with them, you're rightfully the enemy of the rest of the world. And deserve death. Or, like, invasion.

Just doesn't make much sense to me at all why they would make this announcement.

I'm still betting prank.

Much like all the rest of Bin Laden's audio-only tapes, I'm sure this isn't legit. The video tapes of Bin Laden that we know are of him say completely different things than the fake Bin Laden from the "confession" video, and these audio tapes. This is simply more propoganda to goad the public.

Originally posted by kricket
Give it up, folks, you'll never get any proof out of these CT loonies, because they have none. The cell phone calls were faked?????

I could ask one hundred similar questions. One could go on and on, but why bother, just ignore these idiots, and their agenda.

Well put. I am done with this. Some people should watch less "X-Files" episodes.

The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon.

This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious �Hijacker� story was built.

Without the �eminent� Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial �seed� that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.

At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the report was authentic and 100%
attributable, it would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of �Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel��, the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, �My wife said all passengers and flight personnel�� Whoever wrote this story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted Olson.

Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your spouse�s aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon
building, how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.

About the last thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a �scoop�. As a seasoned politician you would already know that all matters involving national security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.

The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire biography on obscure �killer� Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to check his world clock.

It was still �yesterday� in New Zealand on the other side of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.

Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By Ted Olson�s own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with her.

It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50 (sometimes US $5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network.

Under these circumstances the passengers� seat phone on a Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy. Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.

Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.

Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling high �G� turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links completely unusable.

Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the �hijackers� allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:

�Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE
operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists aboard.� Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was later �told� by an operator that her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.

Theodore Olson�s own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled �The Limits of Lying� by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty. Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to
give false information out."

www.geocities.com...

Again, absolutely no evidence is given that anything you people are saying is true.

Thought to consider...

Those who most loudly disparage "conspiracy theory" are most often the ones with the least knowledge of the actual evidence.

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." -- A desperate George W. Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly November 10, 2001

"The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden." George Bush, April 13, 2004 -- The US government has provided NO PROOF whatsoever of this claim.

"It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it." John Pilger

"The contemporary language on terrorism has become the rhetorical servant of the established order." Conor Gearty, Director of Centre for the Study of Human Rights

Originally posted by vista
Thought to consider...

Those who most loudly disparage "conspiracy theory" are most often the ones with the least knowledge of the actual evidence.

And quotes to not equate to knowledge.

And your complete lack of support for what you say leads one to believe you do not have any knowledge of what you are speaking about, either.

Asking someone to prove what they are saying is not a symptom of being fooled. It is a symptom of attempting not to be fooled.

Originally posted by vista

This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious �Hijacker� story was built.

www.geocities.com...

I could not sit out on this one. Why would Olson lie about talking to his wife??? And if it is a lie, then where is she? Are you going to tell me that maybe he "took one for the team?" Or maybe she is sipping drinks in the Carribean with Osama, Tim McVie and Elvis?

Absolutely laughable.

And no proof! What a surprise! There is nothing to back up that geocities paranoid bogeyman site.

Originally posted by Facefirst

And no proof! What a surprise! There is nothing to back up that geocities paranoid bogeyman site.

I haven't even asked for proof. I asked for a single piece of semi-reliable evidence, and they failed to produce even that.

Where is the proof of Olson's phone call?

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." -- A desperate George W. Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly November 10, 2001

"The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden." George Bush, April 13, 2004 -- The US government has provided NO PROOF whatsoever of this claim.

NO PROOF.


March 18, 2004

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war".

Milt Bearden former CIA agent who directed bin Laden's covert CIA operation known as Maktab al Khidamar, the MAK in Afghanistan was on Dan Rather's national TV show Sept. 12th 2001.

When Rather asked, if he (Bearden) thought bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, Bearden downright snubbed the possibility. Bearden explained "a far more sophisticated intelligence operation had to be behind these precise coordinated attacks... if they didn't have a bin Laden they would have invented one."

Friendly-fire and False-flag terrorism share the same objectives: governments orchestrate terrorist attacks to be carried out on their own soil in order to strike fear in the population and to create a "public enemy".

German Minister of Technology (which included supervision of German intelligence - the BND), Andreas von B�low:

"This tactic is called a �false flag operation� or a �false flag recruitment�, used by both the CIA and Mossad for purposes of propaganda. �Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,� von B�low said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events.

�Journalists don�t even raise the simplest questions,� he said, adding, �those who differ are labeled as crazy.� "

Professor Michel Chossudovsky writes: "The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

A recent (2002) classified out-brief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces."

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

Covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channelled to various Islamic terrorist organisations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. Moreover, numerous official statements, intelligence reports confirm recent links (in the post Cold War era) between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001)." Fabricating an Enemy

International affairs analyst Eric Margolis writes -- "Al-Qaida, an organization that never exceeded 300 men, and now has only about 100, was never the vast threat claimed by the White House and US media. The Bush Administration has enflamed the entire Muslim World by its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, antagonistic rhetoric, and total identification with Israel�s repression of the Palestinians.

We are still not even sure al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11, as Bush claims. If the Bush Administration was so totally wrong about Iraq�s secret weapons and links to al-Qaida, why is its information any more reliable about the shadowy bin Laden?

After promising in 2002 to release proof of al-Qaida�s guilt for 9/11, the Administration never did. German courts recently determined the 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg, not Afghanistan, and could find no direct link to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida leaders applauded 9/11 �after the fact � but may not have been actively involved in planning or finance."

The 9/11 Investigative Panel: the worst 'terrorist' attack on American soil - the greatest intelligence 'failure' -- and the Bush administration refuses to provide or search for answers - WHY?

From 9-11 to 3-11 -- "The recent bloody attack in Madrid is scripted right out of a global strategy of international terrorism, whose objectives and main goals originate outside the borders of Spain. In fact, the objectives come directly from the White House, particularly from the group of strategists and consultants working for Bush, known as the Pentagon Israeli lobby.

Those �specialists�, all very educated westerners, with very good r�sum�s and degrees from many different imperial universities, spent the entire time providing their �analysis� drawing comparisons on the methodology, the logistics, and the habitual operative strategies of the so-called �Al-Qaeda Terror Network�, to which �oddly enough- its existence and real objectives are never analyzed publicly and openly.

The international press bleeding-heart analysts - who are completely ignorant of how the strategic underworld of the intelligence services operates - being dispatched all over the world with their classic condemnations against the murderous terrorism of the ETA or Al-Qaeda, of which they haven�t the smallest idea about the real political and international interests that these �terrorist groups� have connections with.

The �introduction of Al-Qaeda in Europe�, by means of a real bloody attack, is directed to show the western society that the "terrorism exists" and it affects everybody equally, and that the only one with the military and logistic capacity to fight it is the USA with Bush in charge."

Chossudovsky: "Propaganda's Consistent Pattern"

The reports often points to the possibility of terrorist attacks, "sooner or later" or "in the next two months".
They indicate that future terrorist attacks could take place in a number of allied countries (including Britain, France, Germany) in which public opinion is strongly opposed to the US-led war on terrorism.

The warnings also include warnings regarding "attacks on US soil", attacks against civilians in Western cities.
The arrested individuals are in virtually all cases Muslims and/or of Middle Eastern origin U.S. Ambassador Celluci warns Canada: They could be next on the list for terror attacks -- When it comes to terrorism, ordinary Canadians are not as concerned as they should be, he said. The RCMP, CSIS and the military "get it" about terrorism, but the Canadian public has been less concerned, Mr. Cellucci said.

Will intelligence agencies orchestrate a 'terror' attack on Canadian soil to get the public 'on-side' on the 'war on terror'?

THE SPIN: Israeli DEBKAfile terrorist experts "finds a strong case against al Qaeda alone or with ally and points to advance warnings. In tape aired last October Bin Laden threatened to punish Spain for backing Bush. In 20 subsequent fatwas al Qaeda called for liberation of Andalusia and Granada wrested from Muslim rule by Crusaders in late 15th century. Spain was second target after Istanbul where caliphate fell in World War 1, Italy is third for being center of heresy (Vatican).

Al Qaeda leaders undecided on next stage, whether to target all Europe or use continent as springboard against America. Israel medical team assisting Spanish pathologists in identifying terror victims."

The explosive detonators, Koran verses and video found were convenient and obvious. A CIA/MOSSAD operation? "By way of deception, thou shalt do war".

"There is no 'war on terror', just the new Great Game"

John Pilger, 2002, adding that the 19th century geopolitical struggle for power and wealth had merely been vastly speeded-up, and has become more deadly than ever.

You need to provide a link to your above quoting vista. Please properly cite or reference your sources.

I happened to run across this a bit ago, maybe this is of inquiry?
Bin Laden Mimics MoveOn.org?

Notes OpinionJournal.com's James Taranto, the latest bin Laden outburst "shows a command of Democratic talking points - Halliburton is evil; the president is a 'liar' who commands a 'gang'," etc.

seekerof

Originally posted by vista
Where is the proof of Olson's phone call?

I would not think that it would require more than good faith that a man who has lost his wife is telling the truth.... I don't have any proof on hand....but I think you can check phone records. I don't have access to those. Of course, if I provided them, you would say they were planted or forged..... Yeah, that's right, he is visiting her down in the Carribean to have drinks with Elvis....

You never answered my questions. If it is a lie, than where is Barbara Olson? And why would Mr. Olson lie? About his wife no less? Do you actually think he would knowingly put his wife on the chopping block? Oh, he was in on it....I see. Just taking one for the team....

I wonder if Barbara Olson's funeral was faked?

And what about the other phone call from the passenger that was recorded?
I listened to that in it's entirety, the geocity BS site tries to put a spin on it, but if you have actually listened to it....well, truth is truth.

And that long winded bunch of opinions you presented were just that, OPINIONS. No actual proof of anything.

I will contemplate that when I think about the people I knew who died that day...... absolute garbage.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Facefirst]

Lots of arguing here, bummer.
I was hoping that all non-"islaminals"
(My word for Islamic animals, not to be confused with
your standard Islamic human), would see OBL for what he is: An enemy of humanity, plain and simple.

I'm sure he doesn't believe all that crap about Virgins in the afterlife. He just likes pissing off those who offered him help in the past, and directing OTHER people to do his bidding and die for him.

There is no super duper crypto conspiracy, it's obvious.
MONEY, POLITICS (read religion), GREED, POWER, all that natural human instincts, are driving this whole thing.

I guess it's just a matter of how you'd like the world in the end. PROgressive, or back to the Ottoman Empire, when a rag on your head really meant something.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Facefirst

And no proof! What a surprise! There is nothing to back up that geocities paranoid bogeyman site.

I haven't even asked for proof. I asked for a single piece of semi-reliable evidence, and they failed to produce even that.

Where is the proof that it did happen. Instead of asking for everyone elses proof, come with your own to debunk it. I have not seen either of you try to.

There are countless Theories abound on these events, then there is the truth, which no one will ever know.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by TrickmastertricK]