Since Zap is apparently convinced I’m “lying” about 9/11 because I’m THEORIZING(dickhead) about what really happened on that day. Could someone clear these couple questions up for me?
#1. Where’s the evidence that AQ was behind 9/11?
#2. Who funded the hijackers?
Good luck, because you won’t be able to answer them…
Ah yes, the video tape, your one piece of shotty evidence supporting your fairy tale theory.
Note that only 5 days after the attack, Bin Laden denied any involvement via Al Jazeera- Man Who Killed Bin Laden | Fox News
Then on the 28th of September in 2001, he again denied involvement in the Pakistani newspaper, Ummat, which he said “I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States…Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed”
So he denies involvement twice, but then our government hits the fucking jackpot when they stumble across a lone VHS tape in the large city of Jalalabad…Even though they wouldn’t disclose how or when they found the tape. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html
I’m also pretty sure that in the video “bin laden” makes reference to 2 hijackers who turned up alive after 9/11.
So, if that’s the only evidence you can point to(which it is), than that makes for a pretty pathetic case.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Ah yes, the video tape, your one piece of shotty evidence supporting your fairy tale theory.
Note that only 5 days after the attack, Bin Laden denied any involvement via Al Jazeera- Man Who Killed Bin Laden | Fox News
Then on the 28th of September in 2001, he again denied involvement in the Pakistani newspaper, Ummat, which he said “I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States…Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed”
So he denies involvement twice, but then our government hits the fucking jackpot when they stumble across a lone VHS tape in the large city of Jalalabad…Even though they wouldn’t disclose how or when they found the tape. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html
I’m also pretty sure that in the video “bin laden” makes reference to 2 hijackers who turned up alive after 9/11.
So, if that’s the only evidence you can point to(which it is), than that makes for a pretty pathetic case. [/quote]
How about the last several videotape messages with bin ladin’s #2 guy-al Zawihiri? Uh, wasnt that a fucking picture of Mohammed Atta behind him while he spoke about future attacks against America? Yeah-pretty sure it was. It was on al jazeera very recently.
Zawihiri has made several videotapes in the last 6 months with 9-11 propaganda behind him and even made verbal reference to some of the hijackers.
What more evidence are you looking for?
-Dunne
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
#1. Where’s the evidence that AQ was behind 9/11? [/quote]
Al-Qaeda is a pretty “fluid” entity. Many groups can operate independantly for years and then claim “member” status if and when it becomes convenient for them to do so. Al-Qaeda is at least as much a useful “umbrella” term for the western media as it is a real entity. If you’re into conspiracy theories, you’re no doubt familiar with the various websites that claim that Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist at all, except as a western media invention.
My view on the whole thing is that terrorists where behind 9/11, whether they were “affiliated” with some larger organization or not. Of course, if they were part of some larger group, it’d be good to identify it and keep close tabs on any future actions.
Getting pilot lessons, then buying plane tickets and boxcutters does not require enormous funds. They could’ve been funded by any number of sources, legal and illegal. The costs for the whole operation are probably much less than $500,000; an easily attainable sum for just about any group of 20 members.
Investigating after the fact, when most participants are dead makes finding those thing very difficult. Especially since people who knew the hijackers are probably keeping their mouth shut, whether they are innocent or accomplices to the act.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Al-Qaeda is a pretty “fluid” entity. Many groups can operate independantly for years and then claim “member” status if and when it becomes convenient for them to do so. Al-Qaeda is at least as much a useful “umbrella” term for the western media as it is a real entity. If you’re into conspiracy theories, you’re no doubt familiar with the various websites that claim that Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist at all, except as a western media invention.
My view on the whole thing is that terrorists where behind 9/11, whether they were “affiliated” with some larger organization or not. Of course, if they were part of some larger group, it’d be good to identify it and keep close tabs on any future actions.[/quote]
So you agree there is no evidence that AQ was behind 9/11.
And we don’t know who funded them why?
Isn’t that what investigations are all about?
I appreciate the long winded response but, basically, what you said is that there are no answers to the questions.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
So you agree there is no evidence that AQ was behind 9/11.[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I haven’t read every available reports on 9/11 so I can’t pronounce myself on what evidence there might be.
What I said is that whether AQ is behind it or not is irrelevent. If it’s not AQ, then it’s another terrorist group.
I was simply observing that you’ll often hear news about terrorist attacks from some fringe group with a name like “islamic jihad” or whatever and they’ll mention somewhere “ties with Al-Qeada” but never explain or specify what those ties are.
I haven’t actually checked for answer to those questions; so there might be answers.
And while an investigation might be for the purpose of finding out information; there’s no garantee that any investigation will find out anything, much less everything. There are myriads of unsolved police cases across the world; are each of those the result of government conspiracies too?
To put it in a less long-winded way: Even if there are no concrete answers to your two questions, what does that prove? I’m sure you’ve got a follow-up punch to your intro, no?
Good point about AQ transience pookie. Student of truth! Cool guy
There are obviously no answers to the questions. All the hijackers are dead. Who else will tell the secrets? No-one. We’ll read about it after official secrets have been released (in history books)
But i’d just like to say, questioning the validity of the 9/11 being an unequivocably vile external attack by muslims who want to establish a caliphate, and destroy every single American, is very futile, and offensive to most people on here. Any talk is speculation, and salt in the collective wounds of most Americans
There are no answers just yet, so i suggest we don’t talk in any way that cheapens the memory of the innocents that died that day. Just a suggestion
[quote]pookie wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
That’s not what I said. I haven’t read every available reports on 9/11 so I can’t pronounce myself on what evidence there might be.
What I said is that whether AQ is behind it or not is irrelevent. If it’s not AQ, then it’s another terrorist group.
I was simply observing that you’ll often hear news about terrorist attacks from some fringe group with a name like “islamic jihad” or whatever and they’ll mention somewhere “ties with Al-Qeada” but never explain or specify what those ties are.
I appreciate the long winded response but, basically, what you said is that there are no answers to the questions.
I haven’t actually checked for answer to those questions; so there might be answers.
And while an investigation might be for the purpose of finding out information; there’s no garantee that any investigation will find out anything, much less everything. There are myriads of unsolved police cases across the world; are each of those the result of government conspiracies too?
To put it in a less long-winded way: Even if there are no concrete answers to your two questions, what does that prove? I’m sure you’ve got a follow-up punch to your intro, no?
[/quote]
This is the WHOLE problem. There isn’t evidence to prove who was behind 9/11, yet everyone takes the government’s word as concrete. WHY?!?!?! If I’m a tin-foil hat conspiracist because I believe the government played a role in 9/11, then everyone else is a wackjob as well because there isn’t sufficient evidence to prove who was behind 9/11.
Everyone’s running on the ASSUMPTION that muslim extremists were the perpetrators. How is this theory any more plausible than government involvement when lack of proof exists???
I know who benefitted from 9/11, and it wasn’t terrorists.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Good point about AQ transience pookie. Student of truth! Cool guy
There are obviously no answers to the questions. All the hijackers are dead. Who else will tell the secrets? No-one. We’ll read about it after official secrets have been released (in history books)
But i’d just like to say, questioning the validity of the 9/11 being an unequivocably vile external attack by muslims who want to establish a caliphate, and destroy every single American, is very futile, and offensive to most people on here. Any talk is speculation, and salt in the collective wounds of most Americans
There are no answers just yet, so i suggest we don’t talk in any way that cheapens the memory of the innocents that died that day. Just a suggestion[/quote]
If there are no answers than I think that presents a huge problem. A huge, fucking, problem. You’re running on blind faith in your government. I don’t put as much trust into an entity that has proved numerous times it’s willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda.
It also doesn’t cheapen the memory of the innocent lives lost on that day. If we are being mislead about the true identity of the killers on 9/11 or if there is any doubt(which there is), than not questioning those contradictions and unanswered questions not only cheapons there memory, it dishonors them. Don’t attempt to villainize me because the whole truth has yet to see light.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Ah yes, the video tape, your one piece of shotty evidence supporting your fairy tale theory.
Note that only 5 days after the attack, Bin Laden denied any involvement via Al Jazeera- Man Who Killed Bin Laden | Fox News
Then on the 28th of September in 2001, he again denied involvement in the Pakistani newspaper, Ummat, which he said “I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States…Whoever committed the act of September 11 are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, common American people have been killed”
So he denies involvement twice, but then our government hits the fucking jackpot when they stumble across a lone VHS tape in the large city of Jalalabad…Even though they wouldn’t disclose how or when they found the tape. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html
I’m also pretty sure that in the video “bin laden” makes reference to 2 hijackers who turned up alive after 9/11.
So, if that’s the only evidence you can point to(which it is), than that makes for a pretty pathetic case. [/quote]
Well, if Osama said it, it must be true.
I want evidence it was NOT Al Queada. Oh wait…the conspiracy thing…oh yeah.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
This is the WHOLE problem. There isn’t evidence to prove who was behind 9/11, yet everyone takes the government’s word as concrete. WHY?!?!?![/quote]
Because the official explanation is the most plausible one.
All of the alternative explanations, such as those presented in documentaries like “loose change”, require conspiration and secrecy on a ridiculous scale. They require involvement from any number of government offices; all complicit and all leak-proof. They also require complicity after the fact from all the investigating agencies.
The only blame I could place on the government would be to not have been able to prevent it. I’ll buy incompetence and stupidity. I simply can’t buy your conspiracy version exactly because it would require extreme competence, loyalty and perfect execution from all involved.
You put your finger on it: What’s more plausible?
For myself, I find the official version much more plausible and credible than any of the “conspiracy” ones. Those “theories” use just about every fallacy in the book to “prove” their conclusions. They cherry-pick the facts and keep only those who appear to support their pet theory. When you consider all the facts available, there’s, in my view, only one “plausible” conclusion and that’s the official one.
That 9/11 has been subverted for other purposes, such as reducing rights with the Patriot Act; or invading Iraq is quite possible. But to argue backwards from those facts and then imply that 9/11 was deliberate on the part of the government is disingenuous.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Well, if Osama said it, it must be true.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s a funny argument. The conspiracy theorist reject anything the government says; but if it’s from Osama (even allegedly), then they take it as pure truth.
Well, here’s part of a transcript from one of the Osama tapes:
"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn’t forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn’t include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn’t respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
Good point about AQ transience pookie. Student of truth! Cool guy
There are obviously no answers to the questions. All the hijackers are dead. Who else will tell the secrets? No-one. We’ll read about it after official secrets have been released (in history books)
But i’d just like to say, questioning the validity of the 9/11 being an unequivocably vile external attack by muslims who want to establish a caliphate, and destroy every single American, is very futile, and offensive to most people on here. Any talk is speculation, and salt in the collective wounds of most Americans
There are no answers just yet, so i suggest we don’t talk in any way that cheapens the memory of the innocents that died that day. Just a suggestion
If there are no answers than I think that presents a huge problem. A huge, fucking, problem. You’re running on blind faith in your government. I don’t put as much trust into an entity that has proved numerous times it’s willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda.
It also doesn’t cheapen the memory of the innocent lives lost on that day. If we are being mislead about the true identity of the killers on 9/11 or if there is any doubt(which there is), than not questioning those contradictions and unanswered questions not only cheapons there memory, it dishonors them. Don’t attempt to villainize me because the whole truth has yet to see light.[/quote]
I don’t think investigating what actually happened cheapens peoples lives, i just said that it was so raw for most people, perhaps no one would respond in a positive way.
I won’t try to villainise you. This isn’t a burning cross, i can understand why you’re curious about an opaque event.
All it is is a question- Who will tell you about who was responsible? If it’s one guy, who worked for a defense agency or whatever, to believe only his account is also blind faith. It’s strange how states are entitled to keep truth from their citizens until many decades have passed.
Bin Laden could be an ostrich in a mask. I’m for ‘questioning the contradictions’. You’d better do some serious digging though.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Since Zap is apparently convinced I’m “lying” about 9/11 because I’m THEORIZING(dickhead) about what really happened on that day. Could someone clear these couple questions up for me?
#1. Where’s the evidence that AQ was behind 9/11?
#2. Who funded the hijackers?
Good luck, because you won’t be able to answer them…[/quote]
2.Ali Abdul Aziz Ali was a major funder and al qaeda member.
from the 9/11 report:
“Ali sent Shehhi and [Mohammed] Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000.”
“…assisted nine future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
Read the 9/ll report, but you’re gonna feel pretty stupid after you do…
[quote]pookie wrote:
Because the official explanation is the most plausible one.
All of the alternative explanations, such as those presented in documentaries like “loose change”, require conspiration and secrecy on a ridiculous scale. They require involvement from any number of government offices; all complicit and all leak-proof. They also require complicity after the fact from all the investigating agencies.[/quote]
Covert special operations require small amounts of individuals. And secrecy can be had, just as an example, ULTRA had thousands of participants and all kept quiet for yearrrs.
And this is impossible why? If fanatical muslim men hell bent on destroying the US can exist who are competent, loyal, and pull off an attack of this magnitude flawlessly, then why couldn’t our government do the same?
In fact it’d be much easier for our government to do, and what these men supposedly did on that day is nearly impossible, especially considering how one of the flight instructors called the pilot who flew the pentagon plane a terrible pilot. Yet they flew like an ace fighter, simply astounding.
[quote]pookie wrote:You put your finger on it: What’s more plausible?
For myself, I find the official version much more plausible and credible than any of the “conspiracy” ones. Those “theories” use just about every fallacy in the book to “prove” their conclusions. They cherry-pick the facts and keep only those who appear to support their pet theory. When you consider all the facts available, there’s, in my view, only one “plausible” conclusion and that’s the official one.
That 9/11 has been subverted for other purposes, such as reducing rights with the Patriot Act; or invading Iraq is quite possible. But to argue backwards from those facts and then imply that 9/11 was deliberate on the part of the government is disingenuous.
[/quote]
Isn’t it strange that the US was massing troops outside of Afghanistan pre-9/11?
Was Osama invloved (yes!)?
From the 9/11 report:
KSM admits:
"KSM claims that Bin Ladin could assess new trainees very quickly,in about ten minutes,and that many of the 9/11 hijackers were selected in this manner. Bin Ladin, assisted by Atef, personally chose all the future muscle hijackers for the planes operation, primarily between the summer of 2000 and April 2001. Upon choosing a trainee, Bin Ladin would ask him to swear loyalty for a sui=cide operation.
After the selection and oath-swearing,the operative would be sent to KSM for training and the filming of a martyrdom video, a function KSM supervised as head of al Qaeda?s media committee.104
KSM sent the muscle hijacker recruits on to Saudi Arabia to obtain U.S. visas.He gave them money (about $2,000 each) and instructed them to return to Afghanistan for more training after obtaining the visas.At this early stage, the operatives were not told details about the operation.The majority of the Saudi muscle hijackers obtained U.S.visas in Jeddah or Riyadh between Sep=tember and November of 2000.105
KSM told potential hijackers to acquire new ?clean?passports in their home countries before applying for a U.S.visa.
This was to avoid raising suspicion about previous travel to countries where al Qaeda operated. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers, including nine Saudi muscle hijackers, obtained new passports. Some of these passports were then likely doctored by the al Qaeda passport division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to cre=ate ?false trails? in the passports.106
In addition to the operatives who eventually participated in the 9/11 attacks as muscle hijackers, Bin Ladin apparently selected at least nine other Saudis who, for various reasons, did not end up taking part in the operation: Mohamed Mani Ahmad al Kahtani,Khalid Saeed Ahmad al Zahrani,Ali Abd al Rahman al Faqasi al Ghamdi, Saeed al Baluchi, Qutaybah al Najdi, Zuhair al Thubaiti, Saeed Abdullah Saeed al Ghamdi, Saud al Rashid, and Mushabib al Hamlan.
A tenth individual, a Tunisian with Canadian citizenship named Abderraouf Jdey, may have been a candidate to participate in 9/11, or he may have been a candidate for a later attack.These candidate hijackers either backed out,had trouble obtaining needed travel documents,or were removed from the operation by the al Qaeda leadership. Khallad believes KSM wanted between four and six operatives per plane. KSM states that al Qaeda had originally planned to use 25 or 26 hijackers but ended up with only the 19."
Hmmm…does Osama handpicking hijackers point to al qaeda involvement…?
Jeebus.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Funny story about KSM. He’s been held by the US at undisclosed locations for years, and his supposed testimony(provided in transcript form), forms most of the basis for the 9/11 Report. Strange how their key witness wouldn’t be allowed to testify in front of the commission when they requested him to. Again, take the government’s word for it!
[quote]100meters wrote:
2.Ali Abdul Aziz Ali was a major funder and al qaeda member.
from the 9/11 report:
“Ali sent Shehhi and [Mohammed] Atta a total of $114,500 in five transfers ranging from $5,000 to $70,000.”
“…assisted nine future hijackers between April and June 2001 as they came through Dubai. He helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and hotel reservations; he also taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
Read the 9/ll report, but you’re gonna feel pretty stupid after you do…[/quote]
Here’s more strange information:
"General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07). "
Won’t find those in your 9/11 report because they ommitted that information.
This where things get extremely confusing. It is true that there is no real evidence the terrorists did it, and Bin Laden did deny the attacks (why would he lie?). The tape makes good points, but then again the tape is not 100% surefire as well.
It’s sad to think that our own government did this, but we must take into account how much they had to benefit from it. The most simplistic means of discovering who was behind it is to find who had the greatest motivation to execute the attack, who would benefit most from it.
Sadly enough, a small number of powerful people in our country have profited greatly from this ‘war on terror’ and the events that followed September 11th. The most convincing portion of the tape describes how all the alleged hijackers (who would all be dead) were discovered to be alive and working civilians in arab nations proceeding the ‘hijackings’.
Given all the evidence, people refuse to open their eyes to it. And for once, I can’t blame them. If the government were to come out and admit they did it, I myself would have a very difficult time accepting this. It is a terrible thought, but we can’t turn our back on what is potentially the truth. I’ve seen the evidence provided by the tape and it is quite convincing, it really makes you think.
However, I cannot bring myself to believe our own government could do this to us, but greed is a powerful vice of humanity. I’m very torn between this.