Bin Laden and available dialysis machines.

reply to post by jprophet420


"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

FBI Spokesman Rex Tomb referring to the reason 9/11 is not included on the Wanted Poster. Washington Post, Monday, August 28, 2006.

End of story.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by jprophet420

 

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

FBI Spokesman Rex Tomb referring to the reason 9/11 is not included on the Wanted Poster. Washington Post, Monday, August 28, 2006.

End of story.

He directly states something contradictory to the partial quote you have there so for you to say end of story is indicative of a very low level of intellectual honesty and a very low level of interest in getting to the heart of 911 related matters.

End of story indeed.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by jprophet420

 

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

FBI Spokesman Rex Tomb referring to the reason 9/11 is not included on the Wanted Poster. Washington Post, Monday, August 28, 2006.

End of story.

He directly states something contradictory to the partial quote you have there so for you to say end of story is indicative of a very low level of intellectual honesty and a very low level of interest in getting to the heart of 911 related matters.

End of story indeed.

Nope, sorry. That's about it. The FBI want OBL relative to 9/11. Don't know where else you can go with that. They want him for 9/11. Don't really know how this could be made any clearer.

If you are accusing me of cherry picking the quote, then please be my guest and post the remainder of the quote. If anybody wonders what else is in the article I provided a clear reference.

reply to post by hooper


Actually, you said it. They want him for 911.

Now they just have to collect the evidence for the indictment.

Justice is a bitch.

My apologies to the OP, I was treating it as if he was not 911 related, that was a fallacy. Involved and charged are worlds apart as we all know.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420


Why do I think that may not be a problem? Maybe all the videos he made?

He's dead, and Bhutto knew it:

www.youtube.com...

And the BBC censored the interview....

www.youtube.com...

I searched the BBC website "Frost Bhutto" and no results came up.

But, I hadn't seen this video before... hilarious,,, apparently Bhutto said "Osama Bin Laden" when she meant to say "Daniel Pearl".

www.youtube.com...

Which doesn't explain why the BBC needed to edit it out. Were they scared Omar Sheikh would sue them for libel?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Don’t act all high and mighty all your posts are just your opinion, no back up.

Here is just one article from former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas regarding Bin Laden as dead, not a collage student a former Marine.

www.truthmovementaustralia.com.au...

hers another regarding fake bin laden tapes

news.cnet.com...

Now a well know case of Mossad forging passports

www.abc.net.au...

So in a two minute Google search I was able to find a credible statement admitting bin Laden dead, also cases of his tapes being fake, and a case of a spy agency forging international passports for political assassinations.

Now there are many other examples I can offer if I could be bothered, but don’t dumb this down by talking about shape shifters and collage student videos.

The most wanted man in the world, hiding in a 3rd world country for a decade, cant be found by a world super power with the most advanced satellite technology, also in bed with Israel, and India, who have their spy agencies presumably looking for this one man, and apparently he is hiding in a cave with serious health problems. BULLS**T!!!.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Why do I think that may not be a problem? Maybe all the videos he made?

Certainly. There are many videos of men that look like and may or may not be bin laden that were released to the press. We have no way of authenticating but the FBI does, and they haven't charged him on lack of evidence as they directly stated. That alone says worlds more than anything either of us can post.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
I posted this thread with one purpose in mind.. It was not intended for a debate on how or how often Bin Laden needed his treatment, but a more sinister aspect, why would people question or indeed refute the facts that he was not seriously ill in the 1st place?,

Mainly, becuase Bin Laden himself says this whole kidney problem bit is false, and yet for some unfathomable reason you insist on quoting the complete horse [censored] you're getting off those damned fool conspiracy web sites who have been caught red handed at making stuff up again and again. You're so eagar to look through garbage cans and analyze grammar symantecs looking for secret hidden information about Bin Laden and yet when a journalist actually goes to the guy and gets a direct answer it's like you don't even care.

The only one whose credibility is suffering from this is you, you know.

I find it absolutely remarkable that you have used Bin Laden himself as your source of proof, yet, like many others, have disregarded other alleged statements from Bin Laden, released via radio, video`s or interviews with neutral reporters that have expressed his denial of 9/11 in great depth.

So where does that leave us?, any such statements that filter through claiming his innocence are pure fabrication, but, any that contain evidence that points a finger at him for 9/11 are 100% bona fide, even though one of these so called pieces of evidence, a video which is supposed to be Bin Laden that looks nothing like him, and has been thoroughly examined by a neutral voice analysis expert (from Switzerland iirc), whose findings and detailed results from his stringent tests clearly indicate that the persons voice in that video does not match Bin Laden`s.

I still see your approach to all this hasn`t changed much, I still see an absence of putting forward 100% fool proof evidence enforcing your beliefs of what happened that day, in favour of trying to ridicule people with alternative opinions as idiots feeding from fruit cake websites, a few aspects of 9/11 from your side of the fence, which imho are the basis of such sites you accuse us from getting our sources from.......

1. A pilot that was not fit to fly a single engined Cessna, pulls off a top gun like manoeuvre, to hit a side of the Pentagon that was constructed to withstand a nuclear attack, a feat that many seasoned pilots deemed impossible, which leads to those pilots been character assassinated, and others claiming to be be pilots stating it was an easy task to accomplish, whilst gleefully telling us all that flying 767-757`s is a piece of pish, hell you can spend a few hours on a flight simulator and you`re good to go.

2. Vehicles constructed form fibre glass and light weight metal piercing buildings built to withstand hurricane type gales and ironically enough... Huge commercial airliners hitting them, and not forgetting that these aircraft also managed to pierce a few layers of reinforced concrete and nuclear missile friendly walls over at the Pentagon, and somewhere near Shanksville, one managed to bury itself.

3. A broadcast from the largest news gatherer company in the world, the B.B.C. stating in explicit detail about the collapse of WTC7 22 minutes before it happened and then 6-7 minutes before WTC7 actually collapsed the B.B.C.`s live news feed team mysteriously went off air, this whole fiasco gets labelled as just another every day news anchor goof, completely overlooking the whole protocols of releasing news bulletins, that involve stringent authentication from reliable sources with documented evidence, before they are fed into the autocue for the news anchor to read, who was responsible at the B.B.C for letting this report be broadcasted to the world?.

4. Bush stating that he saw the 1st impact live on T.V. whilst in the corridor of the school he was visiting (what a terrible pilot) he thought to himself, this of course was impossible due to two major facts, the part of the school where he was situated had no T.V. and never has, and the only footage in the world showing impact one was not released for another 11-12 hours, this incidence once again was filed in the easy mistake to make folder, and put down to an incompetent President, the same President whom in his younger days was a trained fighter jet pilot.

5. 503 first responders testimonies completely ignored (accept for the New York Times), whom ran a huge article covering each and everyone of them detailed in over 20,000 pages of evidence, most clearly state explosions aplenty, if the commission was set up for the sole purpose of finding out the truth, why where these people not there?.

6. The C.I.A. have many tasks, one is monitoring the stock market for erratic movements, they have very complex software for doing this, the put options that have never been cashed in, clearly showed signs of way above the market average on certain stocks (could go into this aspect further and a certain politicians wife and her tax returns for that year), once again a certain aspect of 9/11 showing clear signs of insider information.

7. The 1st time in history that buildings were insured against terrorist attacks.

8. The `pull it` fiasco and lucky Larry.

9. Timing of the collapses and gravity defying physics.

10. First time in history that buildings built to withstand infernos, collapsed *due to heat related damage*.

11. A C.I.A. agent being told to `Back off` as his investigations relating to Al Queda were uncovering unexplainable irregularities.

12. The above C.I.A. agent died, his first day at his brand new job, head of security at the WTC.

13. Bush`s brother - A director of the security firm that was once in charge of the security at the WTC.

14. The respective airports and CCTV, airports are subject to stringent security, involving the use of many cameras, where is the CCTV coverage videos from that day showing the terrorists?.

15. I could go on forever here with the fairy tale type crap that has been put forward as evidence, but I wont, instead I will leave you with some food for thought.........

On the morning of 9/11/2001 there was a huge war game involving the military, based on 4 terrorist cells hijacking 4 planes and flying them into 4 buildings, as they were doing this, it happened in real life.

Four years later, London 7/7/2005, a security management team and high ranking English politicians, working side by side were undergoing war games at London train stations, based on 4 terrorist cells all carrying huge bombs and prepared to die - suicide bombers, as they were doing this, it happened in real life.

Sleep tight.

Originally posted by deenuu
hers another regarding fake bin laden tapes

Gigantic problem with your assertion- Al Jazeera is a major outlet for Al Qaida broadcasts becuase the're televised throughout the Arab world. If the videos were faked by the CIA, Al Qaida would come forward and say they were faked. If, however, you're going to claim that Al Qaida is some secret branch of the CIA, like the last two people did when I mentioned that, then it would be idiotic to be faking videos. Bin Laden would be a CIA employee and he'd be putting out videos for real. At best, all your source can show is that the video had been altered.

Here's something to consider, the next time you scream FAKE: Al Qaida has it's own media production house, and yes, they can do green-screen. Al Qaida can produce altered videos AND still be genuine:

As-Sahab media production house

When I say your entire world is based upon nothing but abject paranoia, make believe, and circular logic, you're not exactly proving me wrong, dude.

Originally posted by Seventh
I still see your approach to all this hasn`t changed much, I still see an absence of putting forward 100% fool proof evidence enforcing your beliefs of what happened that day, in favour of trying to ridicule people with alternative opinions as idiots feeding from fruit cake websites, a few aspects of 9/11 from your side of the fence, which imho are the basis of such sites you accuse us from getting our sources from.......

...and you honestly take umbrage when I say you people simply swallow the crap being pushed out by those damed fool conspiracy web sites. I know you're getting this rubbish from those web sites becuase I've seen them spewing every single one of your "truths" that you're quoting here, and every single one of your "truths" had been debunked time and time again.

1) Hani Hanjour didn't need to know how to take off since the pilots would do that. He didn't need to know how to navigate since the autopilot did that. He didn't need to know how to land becuase it was a suicide mission. The only thing he needed to know was what buttons to push, and how to fly in a circle, and that'd be something they'd teach in the first week.

2) It doesn't make a difference what the plane was made of, it's up to the plane's mass and speed. A 200 ton object flying at 400mph is still going to bash ithe Pentagon up, concrete or no concrete. It's a building, not the Hoover dam.

3) The BBC has already addresses the pre-announcement of the WTC 7 collapsing. Instead of making up stories of secret plots, what say you ask them directly what their take on it is?

From the BBC: We made a mistake. Get over it.

4) Bush NEVER said he saw the 1st impact "live on TV". He said he saw the plane HAD hit the WTC (almost certainly from a TV in his presidential limo), and after the first impact every camera in Manhattan was zeroed in on the WTC. Your entire case for conspiracy is...that Bush didn't say the word, "had". You're stretching.

5) Noone is denying there were explosions. Witnesses heard explosions. Camera crews heard explosions. People inside the buildings heard explosions. We even heard explosions, from the news footage. Your problem is that you're falsely insisting it had to be actual explosives rather than the 1000 flammable objects in the towers that would naturally explode when on fire.

6) Of COURSE the WTC was insured for terrorist attacks. It had been attacked by terrorists in 1993. It ain't a trick question.

7) Silverstein's "pull it" was in reference to getting the fire fighters out of the building. The only ones who ever said "pull it" means to blow up a building with controlled demolitions are you and your conspiracy web sites.

8) the war games bit is a complete red herring. As soon as they said, this is not a drill" they knew it was the real thing.

I could go on forever debunking all the nonsense you're getting from those conspriacy web sites, but what's the point. All these have already been debunkied over and over, and they'll still be debunked over and over in the years to come. The reason why is obvious- you people are so much in love with these conspiracy stories of yours that you're not going to believe it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Another incident

A Spanish politician has said he was shocked to find out the FBI had used his photo for a digitally-altered image showing how Osama Bin Laden might look

www.smh.com.au...

Now this isn’t Al Jazeera this is the FBI, and you might say, "oh they were just doing this for fun or as some prediction method" but the Spanish MP wasn’t told about this or asked his permission. So this proves that International spy agencies as well as US Federal agencies are using dis-information in relation to bin ladens media outputs

If, however, you're going to claim that Al Qaeda is some secret branch of the CIA

Well no im not, the CIA created Al Qaeda as a name for a database, whilst secretly funding the Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation in a program called Operation Cyclone.

en.wikipedia.org...

When I say your entire world is based upon nothing but abject paranoia, make believe, and circular logic, you're not exactly proving me wrong, dude.

well I have given multiple examples just from the MSM, that show some of Bin ladens media fronts have been faked, combining that with logic I believe he is dead, and I trust documentaries like Zeitgeist as an example as much as I do the MSM, you haven’t really offered anything besides an opinion which I trust as much as David Ickes Opinion.

I have just realized I have gone quiet of topic with my rant, apologies to OP, I don’t think dialysis machines are Bin ladens worries as I think he is properly enjoying his 40 virgins... metaphorically

Originally posted by deenuu
Another incident

A Spanish politician has said he was shocked to find out the FBI had used his photo for a digitally-altered image showing how Osama Bin Laden might look

I'm not getting involved in these never ending strawman arguments with you. I pointed out that Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir personally interviewed Bin Laden and learned there was no such kidney issues, and instead you bring up some other unrelated thing in the hopes you can obtain a victory in debate without ever addressing the actual topic. When I actually address that and show THAT'S wrong, then you bring up some whole other thing. Soon, you'll have gotten me to argue over completely nonsequitor stuff like whether Hitler committed suicide or skipped the country, but at the end of the day you STILL can't prove what I said is wrong- A Pakistani journalist interviewed Bin Laden and learned there was no such kidney problems. We both know why- you can't.

Unless you can tell me how the FBI using some Spanish guy's photo has anything even remotely to do with Bin Laden not having kidney issues, then please simply admit you lost this debate with grace. The whole bit about Bin Laden having bad kidneys is a proven internet myth and you do yourself no credit by advancing it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


yeah fair enough, i didnt really bother with kidney problems because i think he is dead, but i just found a report that states he was treated in a US hospital for kidney problems, so sorta contradicts your opinion.

www.infowars.com...

reply to post by deenuu


OLDAVE any chance you can post the link for the interview???

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Oldave any luck with that interview link that proves Osama has no kindney problems???

Thought you would have tons of info the way you carried on...

...and you honestly take umbrage when I say you people simply swallow the crap being pushed out by those damed fool conspiracy web sites...

So when MSM releases some stories that Bin Laden tapes are thought to be real by some "expert" sources, and thought to be fake by other "expert" sources, look at the paradox it creates:

More people swallowing more crap. One of the stories has to be false, and everyone that believes the false story is wrong, but think they are right because they saw it on MSM.

Again the FBI does not have enough evidence to bring to a grand jury, their own words. Conspire to make that go away.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Perhaps, but think about this: Would bin Laden admit to being sick, weak? Or would he deny it, to show he is strong and able to direct his network?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm not getting involved in these never ending strawman arguments with you. I pointed out that Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir personally interviewed Bin Laden and learned there was no such kidney issues, and instead you bring up some other unrelated thing in the hopes you can obtain a victory in debate without ever addressing the actual topic.

Dave, I am having a hard time finding Hamid Mir's credentials as a doctor. Perhaps you can explain how he would determine whether or not someone has kidney problems by asking them?