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.

 

VIDEO: Osama Bin Laden didn't do it. (Proof)

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   


Yet again, it looks like the true story has been told, but put out by various media outlets so most people never put 2 and 2 together.

Here's the Washington Post article in which CIA officers discuss faking a Sadam Husein gay sex video, and the Bin Laden video in which "he" admits to planning 9/11 for the first and only time on record.

blog.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Jeanius]




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

I can't watch the video right now, but three separate times after the 9/11 attacks he denied having any involvement in interviews. That one is from the pakistani daily ummat on the 28th September. Why any terrorist organization who managed to organize and successfully attack America in such a way would deny having any involvement is a mystery...and yes i also believe he was killed in an airstrike in december 2001.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Honestly I do not think bin laden had any real connections to the 9/11 attacks besides maybe foreknowledge ...

but

This video was not hard proof of anything. I was a bit disappointed with it, i was looking forward to seeing a new document or something concrete, not a fluff piece.

Respectfully,

~meathead



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
It's sad, really, OBL was just another foreign asset that we discarded when it was convenient, just like Saddam Hussein. Hamid Karzai will probably be next.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
if american government done it then it would be hard for the american government to investigate as there efforts would be hampered by higher ups.
if an independent investigation is done they could be arrested for matters of national security.
the whole thing sucks and we may never know.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Oooops.
Sorry, I first thought this was about Barak iNsain Obama.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
It has gotten to the point where there is so much BS coming from government these days we are becoming desensitized. It is as if we no longer hold even the slightest hope that anything they say is true.

So where that leaves us I don't know. We sit here like were handcuffed and gagged, unable to do anything to change anything.

Even when someone leaks damaging information people are more worried about the protocol than the information itself. Its like we get embarrassed when given the opportunity to see it as it is.

Most people, I think, are more comfortable in their ignorance. I hope to see the day, before my time is up here, that the real perpetrators of 911 get their dues.

Not sure I have enough years left tho at the rate things are going.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Yep. But that wasn't convenient for someone so the message was "disappeared." Typical. Both he and al Qaeda are convenient terrorists threats with which to manipulate public fear and opinion. al Qaeda's just a bunch of mercenaries available to the highest bidding organization and a front. A few of the idiots might even believe they have some real power. Big sham.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't know fellas. I don't think you can prove Osama didn't do it unless you have reliable alibis for his entire life or filmed him and recorded all of his conversations he's ever had.

Or unless the actual perpetrators (whoever they are) are, with irrefutable proof, illuminated.

I find the whole 9/11 business verrry verrry dangerous territory to tread. There's too many conflicting bits and pieces, mixed messages from the government and investigations, a lot of hurt feelings on all sides and of course the people that lost family members in that tragedy.

I steer clear of these topics until we have some sort of definitive TRUTHFUL answer to those fundamental questions: Why are we in the Middle East?

And I believe, barring some major event, we will never know.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I have to agree with Mike, this is hardly proof of anything. While I think it's important for the bigger picture, it isn't proof anything.

Generally speaking, pre-911 terrorist attacks would have a plethora of terror organizations climbing over each other to accept responsability for the attacks. In fact, that is the whole purpose of a terrorist attack.

However, just because the MSM makes a statement, or even the suspect, doesn't mean that it is true. We can't preach about how distrustful the MSM is, then turn around and use what they say as proof. That's cherry picking to fit our own personal biases.

With that being said, it is very telling and although it might not be proof, it is astounding and says a lot to what could have happened.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeanius
 


3-minute utube video is now considered proof?




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


To be fair, there's quite a few private investigations or presentations that are hosted on youtube for people to watch. A lot of interesting information can be gathered there if you have the links/channels. Furthermore, it's a method to share information someone else has created/gathered.

Having said that, yes, it's not the most elevated platform to draw proof from as there's hardly any filtering.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tarrok
 


To be fair: if research links, videos, etc. had also been included in the OP, than I would not have made a comment. But, an entire premise built on a 3-min utube video (whether or not I may agree with the premise) is not proof and should not be claimed as such. Sloppy work.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Jeanius
 


3-minute utube video is now considered proof?



utoob is 4 real dood!


Proof enuff 4 mee.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation, but don't terrorists and terrorist groups live to take credit for what they have perpetrated?

Unless of course he wanted to cast doubt and this was part of the evil plan to cast doubt and place guilt elsewhere.

Even the videotape released in December 2001 doesn't contain a confession or take credit. It merely comments on the events of that day. Seemed to convince everyone he did it though.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Looking at this particular thread, then yes I agree with you. Especially with the title.

Such a title usually requires a wall of text or several alternative sources that confirm the statement. My only point was that Youtube in and of itself can provide additional information that could lead to an interesting discussion. Furthermore I also believe you can use it for 'proof' threads.

HOWEVER (very very big one), Youtube is notoriously unreliable and anything drawn from it needs to be considered carefully. But it can be used and should be taken into consideration.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation, but don't terrorists and terrorist groups live to take credit for what they have perpetrated?

Unless of course he wanted to cast doubt and this was part of the evil plan to cast doubt and place guilt elsewhere.

Even the videotape released in December 2001 doesn't contain a confession or take credit. It merely comments on the events of that day. Seemed to convince everyone he did it though.


Bin Laden was very specific at first about denial saying the Taliban would not allow him to do such a thing attempting to deflect an attack on the Taliban who although supporting him most likely did not know he was going to attack the US directly in such a way. Prior attacks by Bin Laden were on smaller targets, barracks, the Cole and embassies. Such things bring about small military retalitions. A direct attack on the US would bring worse so they would not allow it if they knew. He used them and payed some lip service to try and protect them at first but, of course later after the Taliban had fallen he was happy to take credit.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

I can't watch the video right now, but three separate times after the 9/11 attacks he denied having any involvement in interviews. That one is from the pakistani daily ummat on the 28th September. Why any terrorist organization who managed to organize and successfully attack America in such a way would deny having any involvement is a mystery...and yes i also believe he was killed in an airstrike in december 2001.


Right on. If you're a fledgling terrorist group trying to make a name for yourself - and that is important for recruiting purposes and expanding influence - the first and foremost thing you do, is TAKE CREDIT for the attacks you cause. Even taking credit for things you didn't commit is helpful. Especially when you're the one who allegedly brought the US to its knees if only for a day, denying such an act would directly contradict his alleged motives for the attack in the first place.

In his first alleged "confession", he wrote that his sole purpose was to drag the US into a war they could never win, and bankrupting them in the process. Since that confession is most certainly a fake, it becomes a bit murky about who did write it and for what purpose. It seems to conflict with GW's "They hate us for our freedom!" tagline.

In any case, that does seem to be one of the main motives behind the attacks - to bankrupt the US. So we have interviews that are proven to be genuine, where he denies involvement. Then we have video tapes that are proven to be doctored, in which he confesses.

If this doesn't raise red flags, then you're either willfully blind or not very good at jigsaw puzzles.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I remember how the MSM said that OBL had admitted to the crimes on camera, then you listen to the video, and there he is denying his guilt plane as day.
Just like the passport that never was, or the incubator babies that never were.
What's worst the people who faked this then made it OK to torture childrens' genitls with pliers, film it, and watch the film again, and again, and again.


John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...
(and "christians" judge "muslims"?)

So i don't think that people who debate that the WTCs were brought down by Airplanes full of Muslims, really get just what it is that they are defending, and what the aware world really thinks of them.


[edit on 15-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

Correct me if this is a wrong interpretation, but don't terrorists and terrorist groups live to take credit for what they have perpetrated?

Unless of course he wanted to cast doubt and this was part of the evil plan to cast doubt and place guilt elsewhere.

Even the videotape released in December 2001 doesn't contain a confession or take credit. It merely comments on the events of that day. Seemed to convince everyone he did it though.


Bin Laden was very specific at first about denial saying the Taliban would not allow him to do such a thing attempting to deflect an attack on the Taliban who although supporting him most likely did not know he was going to attack the US directly in such a way. Prior attacks by Bin Laden were on smaller targets, barracks, the Cole and embassies. Such things bring about small military retalitions. A direct attack on the US would bring worse so they would not allow it if they knew. He used them and payed some lip service to try and protect them at first but, of course later after the Taliban had fallen he was happy to take credit.



I'm genuinely interested in this because I've never heard of that. Where does Bin Laden talk about his involvement in the Taliban, and how they wouldn't allow him to make such a large attack? It makes logical sense, because the Taliban are strictly interested in Afghani matters. They certainly wouldn't want the US invading them, looking for one of their business partners.

But I still think it is quite clear that there were several intelligence agencies involved at every step of the way, be it FBI, CIA, Mossad, our military, or Pakistani ISI. They all have dirty fingers in this in one way or another. For example, the Taliban have proven connections with the ISI, which is basically a satellite of the CIA. And of course we created the Taliban.

It may seem like they broke off connections but nope, to this day our money is indirectly going into the Taliban. Behind the curtain of classified information, who knows what kind of labyrinthine connections have been woven over the years?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join