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.

 

Flashback: Bin Laden says he wasn't behind 911 attacks

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




In the following image, the person on the left is the alleged bin Laden from the tape mentioned above. The person on the right is a confirmed image of the real bin Laden:



As you can see, their faces don't match. Their noses aren't even close to being the same.


The image you are pointing out is one screen shot taken from a video. Another fatty Bin Laden claim. The screen shot was taken from a low resolution video. The high resolution video is available from the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

It's quite disappointing, yet predictable of the constant recycling of the same old debunked claim.

Here are some screen shots from the same video, Bonez posted:





Also from the same video of the fatty bin laden video:

Keep in mind please that he is reported to be almost 6 ft 5.







[edit on 18-4-2010 by Six Sigma]




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


After that post showing multiple sources for OBL claiming NOT to have been responsible for the attacks, how surprising that you hone in on the one claim and criticize it. For the record I think that video is fake as well, and it was "found" by US Army supposedly on a VHS tape in an abandoned house in a bombed-out city. Yeah, right. But regardless, I assume you are just ignoring all the other sources in his post.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


After that post showing multiple sources for OBL claiming NOT to have been responsible for the attacks, how surprising that you hone in on the one claim and criticize it. For the record I think that video is fake as well, and it was "found" by US Army supposedly on a VHS tape in an abandoned house in a bombed-out city. Yeah, right. But regardless, I assume you are just ignoring all the other sources in his post.


You can think on your "record" until the cows come home kind sir. You cannot, however prove it. The low resolution screen caps are just that...low resolution. Would you agree that the caps and the GIF i posted resemble OBL?

I am ignoring nothing. Osama did in fact deny involvement... At the beginning. If I were to give you a reason, it would be purely speculation. He has since then, come out and taken claim.

The tape you claim is fake also has al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith in it... is he a fake too? Also, al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen in the tape... faked? Staged?

Khaled al-Harbi, a Saudi national and associate of bin Laden was also there. (and surrendered to the Saudi authorities in 2004)



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It's quite disappointing, yet predictable of the constant recycling of the same old debunked claim.

Alright then, excluding the "fatty bin Laden" claim, there are still other problems with the video like the translation and when it was actually made.

Keep in mind that this alleged confession video is the only one in 2001 and released by the U.S. All other audio/video released by him in 2001 denied having anything to do with the attacks.

Also keep in mind that The Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to find out why bin Laden isn't wanted for 9/11 on his most wanted page. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI:

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Asked how this was possible, Tomb continued:

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”



I don't think anything else needs to be said.






[edit on 18-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
He has since then, come out and taken claim.

Would you mind posting a source please, thanks.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The "confession" tape that claim is fake can be found here:

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

During the trial OBL stated this:


I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission.


www.foxnews.com...

Also in November 2007, OBL again takes responsibility via audio.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Keep in mind that this alleged confession video is the only one in 2001 and released by the U.S. All other videos released by him denied having anything to do with the attacks.


Please source the other videos released by him that show his denials.


Also keep in mind that The Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters


The FBI/ OBL threads are a plenty here at ATS. I think you would agree. The title of this thread is:

Flashback: Bin Laden says he wasn't behind 911 attacks

With the abundance of evidence showing the contrary, I think your final statement is accurate:



I don't think anything else needs to be said.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
The "confession" tape that claim is fake can be found here:

That's not what I asked you for. The "fatty bin Laden" video's translation is highly suspect according to scholars.

But you said that he did deny involvement at the beginning but has since taken claim. I am asking for a source that he has taken claim that was not from the beginning. The "fatty bin Laden" video has too many problems and was released near the beginning and thus it does not count.



Originally posted by Six Sigma
Please source the other videos released by him that show his denials.

I edited my post to make it more clear on what I was trying to say.



Originally posted by Six Sigma
With the abundance of evidence showing the contrary, I think your final statement is accurate

I'm sorry, but I posted an entire list of dates where bin Laden denied responsibility. So far, there has been only one video posted (fatty bin Laden) where he allegedly takes claim, and that video is highly suspect.

Therefore, your claim that "the abundance of evidence showing the contrary" is false. One suspect video of alleged claimed responsibility versus 5 audio/videos where he denied responsibility.

Sorry, but you'll have to try again. 5 videos denying against 1 video allegedly accepting is not "showing the contrary".



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The last 3 *MOVING* videos shown on UK national television of OBL were *NOT* OBL.

Before they moved to audio tape only (no video), the last two statements used a still taken from the last movie that was used.

To re-cap:

* Real Bin Laden appears in a few videos
* In the 3rd to last video, OBL isn't quite himself
* In the 2nd to last video, OBL is not OBL
* in the last video, he has changed again, and is not OBL.
* In subsequent videos (two) they use a still from the last moving film.
* In all later recordings claiming to be OBL, there is no video, only audio.
* In the latest tape played on UK television, it was not even authenticated as OBL, merely reported as being from OBL.

I think Bin Laden has been dead for the last couple of years, and IMHO he was killed at some time in 2007.

I too remember OBL not claiming responsibility for the attacks. As said above, terrorists rarely deny involvement; they want notoriety.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bonez,

As I mentioned prior. In the first two weeks post 9-11 OBL allegedly held an interview or two to deny responsibility for the attacks. This we can agree with.

You said that since he did say that, it was good enough for you. Odd that you would say that. Do you think OBL is an honest man? Do you think he doesn't orchestrate terrorist attacks? Anyway, I don't want to veer off topic too much.

The October 7th tape although he did not claim that he was responsible, he didn't deny involvement.

The November 2001 confession tape was found and released. Did OBL come out since then and say that it was a fake tape?

NOPE.

Has anyone come out and proven it not him?

NOPE

Does the man in the video bear a striking resemblance to OBL?

Indeed.

Since then we have heard from him claiming responsibility. We have also seen many of the hijackers video wills where praise has been given to OBL. We also heard during from him during the Moussoui trial claiming responsibility.

What we haven't heard since Sept 2001 is any form of denial from him.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Oh, history commons, associated press, ect. According to what you say, all of these sources are not to be beleived or trusted. So you convinced me that if an article from the same paper or news says he is guilty, I am not to believe them, so I also would believe that if they say he is innocent, then he is not innocent, or am I only to believe he is innocent? What do I base that decision on?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Greetings ATS, I'm new to the forum, but have been reading some of these threads for a little while now. Don't know if this has been brought up before on ATS, but looks like on top of denying involvement, Bin Laden also agreed to be held in Pakistan to face an international tribunal. The plan was blocked by Musharraf, but if Bush really wanted to avoid war, why didn't he press Musharraf to go through with it?

(Telegragh.co.uk)Pakistan blocks Bin Laden trial



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajcapri
reply to post by predator0187
 


Don't know if this has been brought up before on ATS, but looks like on top of denying involvement, Bin Laden also agreed to be held in Pakistan to face an international tribunal. The plan was blocked by Musharraf, but if Bush really wanted to avoid war, why didn't he press Musharraf to go through with it?

(Telegragh.co.uk)Pakistan blocks Bin Laden trial



To me, it appears the answer to that is clear now, they never intended to catch OBL. It's not like we started looking for him on 9/11, as we all know John O'Neil quit his job over the alleged stonewalling against OBL's capture. Military special forces, with there billion dollar budgets couldn't find him then and can't find him now either.

It seems to me that the so called PTB decided that as long as OBL is not captured this entire cluster*%$# called the WOT can continue.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the same line of thought being applied to the whole WTC site... about ten floors of One World Trade that took all of decade to complete.

Meanwhile, a half mile tall building(that's right two WTC towers stacked on top of each other) was built, in the middle east of all places.

It's like a wound to our country(the unfinished WTC site and the wandering OBL) that TPTB intend to keep open as long as they possibly can.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join