'Al-Qaida on brink of using nuclear bomb'

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by the2people

 

Do you think al Qaeda would use nuclear weapons if they obtained them?

edit on 2-2-2011 by mishigas because: Clarification

if the green light is given then yes, Al Qaeda/CIA will use them

reply to post by the2people

like the need any light, reminds me of this"badges ??? we don't need no stink-en badges" they will when they will, that is any time, any day, and most likely when we think it will not happen. and most likely with a dirty bomb or bio, some thing with mass panic.

Originally posted by endlessknowledge
I'm hard pressed to that think people in caves even have electricity, but I'm to believe they have nukes?

Give me a cave and access to Ebay, and I'll have a full electrical system going in no time.

I'm sure some of them know how to use solar panels, inverters and deep cycle batteries.

As for the nukes, I have no doubt a lot of people know how to produce them. But the real question it, who are these people that make up "Al-Qaida"?

do not for get the OSBL needs dialysis, so how can he get that in a cave??? can you say CIA??? remember they were the majahideen back in the 1980's CIA funded now it has come back to bit us you know where.

Read the title.

Now read the article.

A "dirty bomb" is not a "nuclear bomb." A nuclear bomb is called that because it breaks the nucleus of the atoms making the fissile material in its payload.

A dirty bomb just sprays some radioactive dust around.

A nuclear bomb could destroy New York City in under a second.

A dirty bomb can be beat by a dirt devil handheld vacuum.

So. what is the MSM trying to tell us, here? This is scaremongering, an attempt to make you picture Al Qaeda dropping Tsar Bomba over your hometown, while in reality the story is about how they might have the ability to make a small explosion that requires men in orange suits to hose the place down with foam for a few minutes.

reply to post by coyotepoet


I find it strange how you will believe Robin Cook, but will not believe all the other government ministers who would disagree and in spite of the fact you clearly have no understanding of the history of Al’Qa’ida. You have basically heard one quote and taken it as proof that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA stooge (even though that is not what this article is saying).


It’s the biggest problem on the terrorism forum on ATS, people have no understanding of Al’Qa’ida and seek to look for a alternative history of the group that will back up their 9/11 conspiracies. This just fuels ignorance, it’s infuriating. It just goes to show how narrow your understanding of this group is that you are talking the world of a estranged MP who is not a expert in the history of Al’Qa’ida.


Look at what he has said, at no point does he indicate that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA stooge only that they are the result of a miscalculation of American foreign policy in the 1980’s. He is just wrong to say that the CIA directly funded Al’Qa’ida and armed them at this time. Under operation Cyclone almost all funding went through the ISI and at the time Bin Laden was so wealthy through his family connections he would have no need for the extra funding. Any funding that he did receive would have come from the ISI, possibly with the CIA’s figure prints on it, but he was not directly funded by the CIA and most likely without the CIA’s knowledge. Just about all training went through the ISI as well; however there are some interesting accounts of British SAS training the Mujahedeen in the use of American stinger missile systems. Some estimates claim that up to 100,000 militants were trained under operation cyclone however most of them received their training form the Pakistanis and not the west. During the 1980’s, Bin Laden was for the most part a financer, setting up a series of stop over homes for travailing Mujahedeen and keeping a record of those going to fight the soviets, latterly he is said to have set up a training camp. He was not a “war lord”, he was more of a logistics man, and he was a very small fish in the grand scale of the mighty Afghan war lords. Even if he did get some direct training through operation cyclone he would have been one of literally 100’s of thousands and thus it means nothing. They would never have known what he was to become.


There is nothing in any of the mainstream literature that suggest the CIA set up Al’Qa’ida directly in the 1980’s as part of a future weapon to be used against the American people as a justification for future wars and as a fall guy in a false flag. However it could be accurate to argue that as Cook may have been arguing for, that as a result of a “monumental miscalculation” by the CIA during the 1980’s they inadvertently planted the seeds for the 9/11 attacks by facilitating a victory for the Mujahedeen in the 1980’s against the Soviets and then abandoning Afghanistan.


In any case, the “Al’Qa’ida” you are thinking about never existed until between 1996-2001 Cook is talking about the Al’Qa’ida of the 1980’s which is totally different form the group you are thinking about . So this entire argument is mute due to your astonishing ignorance.

reply to post by TedHodgson


RIGHT

reply to post by Adesh


LEFT

reply to post by kevinunknown


The truth is more layered that that. You get a core group of people trained and indoctrinated into a certain agenda (and if you don't believe the CIA has had their hands in world events from the Middle East to Central America, you weren't paying attention to Iran Contra.) That core group recruits from the poor and disaffected, people with real anger and real grievances, people who are not CIA operatives per say but are following the policies of those in command who happen to be those that were trained and funded by who? Yes, the intelligence community. It is also technically incorrect to say CIA, because that implies that everyone in the agency rather than a compartmentalized cabal is aware of agendas. Also, it involves other intel agencies like NSA, ONI, and as other people have said, alphabet soup agencies, who themselves are just muscle for the globalist elites.



Patsy 101 Get the poor, disaffected and angry to do your dirty work for you, you as the global elite reap the benefit while having distance, protection, and plausible deniability. Obviously I don't have proof of any of this, that's the point. What I do have is a sharp mind and years of study into means and history, which goes way beyond Mr. Cook. And I'm sure it is even more layered than I have outlined. What kind of study have you done to convince you that it doesn't go down that way?

reply to post by coyotepoet

The truth is more layered that that. You get a core group of people trained and indoctrinated into a certain agenda (and if you don't believe the CIA has had their hands in world events from the Middle East to Central America, you weren't paying attention to Iran Contra.) That core group recruits from the poor and disaffected, people with real anger and real grievances, people who are not CIA operatives per say but are following the policies of those in command who happen to be those that were trained and funded by who? Yes, the intelligence community. It is also technically incorrect to say CIA, because that implies that everyone in the agency rather than a compartmentalized cabal is aware of agendas. Also, it involves other intel agencies like NSA, ONI, and as other people have said, alphabet soup agencies, who themselves are just muscle for the globalist elites.

Patsy 101 Get the poor, disaffected and angry to do your dirty work for you, you as the global elite reap the benefit while having distance, protection, and plausible deniability. Obviously I don't have proof of any of this, that's the point. What I do have is a sharp mind and years of study into means and history, which goes way beyond Mr. Cook. And I'm sure it is even more layered than I have outlined. What kind of study have you done to convince you that it doesn't go down that way?

Sounds to me that you and kevinunknown are talking about two different issues here.

kevinunknown has provided us with a chronological history of al Qaeda and bin Laden. I found it very informative and believable.

You have given us a subjective view of how the CIA operates, replete with broad-brushed strokes of urban legend designed to instill a sense of fear in us and to provide yourself with a label of expertise. But to call the NSA, et al " just muscle for the globalist elites" is ridiculous and a bit of high drama, don't you think? How much do you know about the NSA? Give us something to sink our teeth into, please.

reply to post by mishigas


Talking about the same things. The use of an organized group to further an agenda. I used NSA as just an example of alphabet soup intelligence agency, there has been far more documented about the CIA. Chronological history to sink your teeth into?

But to call the NSA, et al " just muscle for the globalist elites" is ridiculous and a bit of high drama, don't you think?

First off, I didn't call the NSA the muscle, I called elements within the intelligence community the muscle. Ridiculous? These are just two well documented examples extracted from below:

1953 Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran

1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock.

If that doesn't sound like muscle for the global elite I don't know what does.

1948 Covert-action wing created — The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Late 40s Operation MOCKINGBIRD — The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

1953 Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran

1954 Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock.

1954-1958 The CIA attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

1957-1973 Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao.

1959 Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti.

1961 The Bay of Pigs Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests. Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. 1963 Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington.

1964 Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history.

1965 Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes. Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator.

1967 Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate.

1969 Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice.

1970 Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle.

1971 Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres.

1973 Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet.

1975 Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government.

1979 Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

1981 Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983 Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989 Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990 Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country.

1991 The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing.

reply to post by coyotepoet


It is more layered than that, but not in the way you are thinking. What I have gave is a very brief account of why Cook was wrong, it would take so long for me to go through the process of writing out a full response with references, only for you and the other paranoid members of ATS to declare “that’s what they want you to think” or that I am a “disinfo agent” it wouldn’t be worth it. Why should I bother education people like you when your minds are already made up, I will point out why you are wrong but am not going to educate you n the finer points when you can’t admit to being wrong.

Nothing in your first post (or your second) is a argument against anything I have said your just spouting more ignorant clap trap from the massive conspiracy ignorance machine. Using massive generalisations, assumptions and your own subjective views it means nothing you’re not even debating the issue with me your just demonstrating how little you know. That may sound harsh but it’s true. Your arguments thus far are just laughable. “Al’Qa’ida” means toilet--- what you honestly believe they would be that stupid, they can pull of this massive false flag operation but they can’t get the name of the terrorist group right.

Your second post means nothing, look at the dates. Almost all of them are during the cold war when America was attempting to prevent the spared of communism, that whole post to me looks as though it has been plagiarised from the book killing hope by William Blum. And again it does nothing to prove anything you have said about Al’Qa’ida being a CIA stooge only that during the cold war the CIA was responsible implementing foreign governments that were friendly to America and anti-communist. You have only given a few lines about each intervention which is not enough to amount to any real argument it’s just you copying and pasting again.

As for this little nugget

What I do have is a sharp mind and years of study into means and history, which goes way beyond Mr. Cook. And I'm sure it is even more layered than I have outlined. What kind of study have you done to convince you that it doesn't go down that way?

If you knew what you were talking about you would not even be having this “debate” with me, you have done nothing to demonstrate your sharp mind and years of study into history. I have done no official study into terrorism, however I have done a few optional university modules on the history of terrorism and counter-terrorism (uk) as well as reading just about everything I can get my hands on in regards to terrorism. I have been interested in it ever since 9/11, however none of that matters, it is not possible to verify your “sharp mind” or how well read i am on the subject. all that matters is the debate at hand, boasting about your “years of study” means nothing just like all of your arguments so far.

There is no shame only strength in admitting your wrong or out of your depth.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Fine. You're right. Everything is as they tell you it is. Continue shopping (actually was said by Bush) and everything will be okay. 9/11 happened exactly as we tell you it did, executed by by 19 terrorists and masterminded by a guy with proven CIA ties whose family has proven ties to the Bush family It is only coincidence. However, as for the rest of it,

Your arguments thus far are just laughable. “Al’Qa’ida” means toilet--- what you honestly believe they would be that stupid, they can pull of this massive false flag operation but they can’t get the name of the terrorist group right.

I am not the one who said it meant toilet in any of my posts, I talked about "the database" and your statement is unclear, as the "they" of the first part of the sentence seems to be referring to the CIA while the "they" of the second part seems to be referring to the group of terrorists themselves. Either way, I didn't write anything about that aspect in my posts.

Your second post means nothing, look at the dates. Almost all of them are during the cold war when America was attempting to prevent the spared of communism, that whole post to me looks as though it has been plagiarised from the book killing hope by William Blum. And again it does nothing to prove anything you have said about Al’Qa’ida being a CIA stooge only that during the cold war the CIA was responsible implementing foreign governments that were friendly to America and anti-communist. You have only given a few lines about each intervention which is not enough to amount to any real argument it’s just you copying and pasting again.

To be plagiarizing I would have to be passing it off as my own. Do you see the big external text box around it? Yes that was a cut and paste history (a google search that jived with other information I know) that I reduced and deleted down because the whole thing ran 12 pages or so. Here is the rest and it extends way before the concern for communism. Also, overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran or Arbenz in Guatamala had less to do with fear of communist spread as much as threat to capitalist interests, one does not necessarily imply the other.

however, here is a relevant "cut and paste" from the same article

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust." The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.

www.huppi.com...

As far as Al'Qa'ida goes, I think I make my point by showing past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior and is one in a long line of patsy groups. I am not arguing that terrorists don't exist, just that the forces that shaped them were manufactured. I'm sure you know an awful lot about terrorism and have read a lot, but your very tag line

9/11 conspiracies Just An Excuse for American Weakness?

indicates where you stand on the official story, which has been shown to be questionable at best, especially with the finding of thermate and other anomalies questioned by many educated people.

Where did these terrorists from Al'Qaeda come from?

visiting Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters in Rawalpindi and helping to plan mujahideen operations: At any one time during the Afghan fighting season, as many as 11 ISI teams trained and supplied by the CIA accompanied mujahideen across the border to supervise attacks, according to Yousaf and Western sources. The teams attacked airports, railroads, fuel depots, electricity pylons, bridges and roads.... CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujahideen in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons. Although the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S., carried out numerous car bombings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

They thrust into our consciousness after the events of 9/11. What was the end result? Going into Afghanistan (again over now proven "false" intelligence. It’s interesting that by 2000 the Taliban had cut the amount of poppy growth by 90%. But then, by 2002, poppy production increased by about the same amount. Coincidental timing, I’m sure, considering that something historically monumental happened between that time to give the United States a reason to go into Afghanistan.

you have done nothing to demonstrate your sharp mind and years of study into history.

Never said, years of study of history. Years of study of conspiracy and esoteric topics with a mind built to recognize patterns. While not on the topic of Al Qaeda but still having to do with CIA meddling, here is an original piece of research from a recent thread I started on Bush, the Middle East, and Mubarak that make some interesting points.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by coyotepoet


Before I respond fully to your last comment i must firstly apologise for a error I made, you were not the person who said Al’Qa’ida translated to “toilet”, you were just responding to that comment. Also we have gone way off topic now debating whether or not Al’Qa’ida is a CIA stooge, I personally would like to get back on topic because I find “mega-terrorism” very interesting. But back to your last post.

9/11 happened exactly as we tell you it did, executed by by 19 terrorists and masterminded by a guy with proven CIA ties whose family has proven ties to the Bush family It is only coincidence.

Why is that so hard for you to believe, why do you find it so easy for a supposedly intelligent individual to believe that this is not true? Why do you rather believe 9/11 was the result of a NWO false flag operation regardless of all the problems that troughs up. By no means is the “official version” got me absolutely convinced, but it’s a hell o’ a lot better than the contradictory, subjective, fictitious, delusional and downright stupid “9/11 conspiracy theories”. I don’t really want to digress further in this thread on to 9/11, I just want to make my position clear. When it comes to 9/11 what you call the “official story” by no means has me 100% convinced, but in the absence of a credible alternative narrative of events from that day it will do for now, Occam’s razor almost always works for me. And I have already explained why the CIA ties stuff is just ignorant conspiracy clap trap

You didn’t give the original author any credibility for that big copy paste job, to me that counts a plagiarism and means I can’t check out the credibility of the link. I’ll put it down to a typo that you forgot to include the link, but you gota give me credit for spotting Blums work right. If I were you I would go and read the whole book to give you some contest and flesh out those two line sentences, in any case they have no bearing on this debate however his other book “Rouge State” probably does. Nothing you have posted backs up any claims that the CIA set up Al’Qa’ida during the 1980’s to use as part of a future weapon against the American people, and I have already addressed the claims that the CIA directly funded Al’Qa’ida during the 1980’s. Then it’s also worth noting that the Al’Qa’ida of the 1980’s is almost completely different form the Al’Qa’ida that existed between 1996-2001 so again the point is mute.

With regard to your thread link you posted (again nothing to do with anything on this thread) we all know that the American neoconservatives have a tradition of propping up dictatorships to benefit American foreign policy.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Good points.Truce. And in regards to 9/11, there are plenty of eyewitness reports of things that go against the official story. And I think that has everything to do with whether AlQaeda Is a CIA front and if they are on "the brink of using a nuclear bomb, then it would be a false flag. This is how all of this started after all. In regards to the link, yes, I didn't see that I had omitted it. There is another thread going on right now called "Is Terrorism Real' that has some insightful comments. I'm not connected, I don't have any documents, but I do pay attention and history is a good indicator and tend to repeat for instance Reichstag and 9/11.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is terrorism real? Is AlQaeda funded and directed by the CIA? The video in this Forbidden Knowledge post says that there is more to the story. Lawyers interviewed on Fox News? Eyewitnesses? Pretty credible. They don't say that it was the CIA, but he does directly blame the government.

www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com...

So again, back to the original point. If Al'Qaeda were to use a dirty bomb or a nuke it most certainly would include another "man in a tan suit with an American accent" lurking somewhere in the background

reply to post by coyotepoet


You still have the fundamental problem of proving that Al’Qa’ida is a CIA stooge until you do that you cannot claim that if they were responsible for the detonation of a dirty bomb it would in reality be another false flag orchestrated by the NWO or whoever you want to blame. The problem you have is that when you actually spend time looking at the history of the middle east and violent Islamic extremism as I have done, you realise quite quickly that Al’Qa’ida is independent of the CIA.

The thread you linked me to just annoyed me, I posed a comment, the guy is assuming that just because he has yet to see any massive cyber terror attacks that terrorists are not real, not true and just a really ignorant thread on the whole.

I only had to watch the first 40 seconds of your video to notice that the guy claiming that the government gave him the bomb and let him on the plane were just a couple of passengers on the plane. Again there was not actual proof.

Now come on this is getting boring, you are just wrong to assume that Al’Qa’ida are a CIA stooge. This does not automatically invalidate 9/11 conspiracy theories, it just means you need to go looking in another direction.