This is a tangent from the Do You Think That Iraq Has WMD? thread.


Praising the September 11 attack is hardly an admission of guilt. Indeed the only bin Laden tape which has been verified by anyone outside the Bush administration is the September 28 tape in which bin Laden claims he had nothing to do with the attack ("I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.").

Enough doubt has been cast on the other tapes (in which, again, bin Laden never claims responsibility for the attack) to render them inadmissable in any court. In any event, these tapes appeared months - up to nine months - after Bush claimed to have incontrovertable proof which he couldn't disclose to anyone except Tony Blair. When details of that "evidence" were finally disclosed, it was characterized as "conjecture, supposition and unsubstantiated assertions of fact". For that matter, both Jurgen Storbeck, director of Europol, and our good friend Pervez Musharraf have expressed doubts about bin Laden's involvement.

If you're genuinely interested (which no one seems to be any more - should this be in the "Old News" forum?), there are several online bibliographies relating to the actual facts which are available in relation to the September 11 attack. For a start, a few can be found here, here, and here. Granted, some of these sites have their own "agendas" and/or may be prone to conspiracy theorizing, but all of their links are to mainstream news coverage of events (though, obviously, not all of American origin).

As I base my conclusions on more than just Fox News, I wouldn't say that I'm the one wearing blinders...

Wertz - it's not "America's Tangent" we're America's Debate. What would you like us to debate? The only question mark I see in your post is in quoting the name of another thread.

Actually I saw this tape being shown on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, Nightline, and even CBS. When UBL made the statement saying when the building fell that he was elated because it was more desctruction than they had "PLANNED"

The key word being planned.

I will try and find an archive of the tapes so I can get some quotes.

kinda hard pressed at the moment inbetween work...


Sleeper

Sorry - I thought the debating point was inherent in Sleeper's posting (to which I didn't feel I should respond in the Iraqi thread). The question mark would be over the evidence surrounding Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attack: Are participants here convinced of bin Laden's guilt and, if so, on what evidence?

Bin Laden didn't claim responsiblity for the embassy bombings for a while did he? Didn't all the hijackers train at terrorist training camps in Afganistan where Bin Laden was? Isn't he the leader of Al Queda? Maybe Bin Laden didn't organize the attack but he is the leader of Al Queda.

Did they? Where's the evidence?


And where's the evidence that al-Qaeda was involved?

As much credible evidence has been produced to suggest that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind the attack as has been produced to suggest that George W Bush was behind the attack. Actually, more evidence has been made public to support the latter. I would like to believe that we were attacked by someone with detestable political and social positions - and I would prefer that that person be Osama rather than George. But I would also like to be convinced. Most of you guys seem pretty convinced. May I ask again: On what evidence?

Bin Laden admitted responsibility.

Source?

The Bin Laden video tape obtained by Al Jazeera?


(Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no inconsistencies in the translations.)



[/b]

link

The fact that they have never denied their involvment and promised further attacks are also convincing.

The evidence is the treasure trove of items discovered in Afganistan by our troops. Laptops, cellphones, commercial jet pilot training manuals, the volume of cell and email traffic leading up to 9/11.

Sorry - my past week has been devoured by childhood sexualtiy research and stuff. I'd meant to get back to this sooner...

The authenticity of the December 13 tape has been seriously questioned (see the links I provided in my first posting). Apart from being largely inaudible, for example, much of the soundtrack is out of sync with the visuals - which, to me, doesn't contribute to how convincing it is. As referenced above, legal experts claim that the tape would neverstand up in court. Sorry, Danya, this gun don't smoke.

Oops - sorry, that's not a fact. Indeed, the only tape pf bin Laden which has been unquestionably verified by anyone not on the US government payroll is the September 28 DENIAL of involvement by bin Laden.



Laptops, cell phones, and training manuals are proof of involvement? Aha! There's conclusive proof, then, that the attacks were engineerd by executives with Virgin Airlines! I knew that Branson was up to no good!

I would like to believe that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind the September 11 attack. I would also like to be convinced.

You do make interesting points Wertz. But if not Bin Laden and Al Queada then who?

Wertz. What is the point in any of us posting evidence as you don't believe anything anyone puts up anyway.


I hate to say it ,but debating with you is pointless..

Sleeper

wow, how noble of him. I guess he must have been mistaken when he said ......



or



how about?



Source: http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm

--cheers

Try posting some actual evidence for a change and we'll see.

I am quite willing to debate opinions, but when someone is claiming that they have "proof" or "documentary evidence" of this, that, or the other, they'd better be able to put up.

I'm sorry, but the 9/11 confession tape is an OBVIOUS fake: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html (don't dismiss it cause it is from whatreallyhappened.com)

let's see:
OBL is lighter skinned than the man in the confession video (CV from here on)

OBL's nose is longer and thinner th the man in the CV.

The man in the CV has a round, chubby face, where OBL has a longer, thinner face.

the man in the CV shoulders are at more of a downward angle the OBL. '

many parts of the translation are wrong.

the man in the CV appears to write notes with his right hand, yet the FBI's description of OBL indicates he is left-handed.

it doesn't take a genius to see that the man in the CV isn't OBL, especially when you look at the photos side by side.

again, go to this site to see for yourself. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

And I suppose all of these people have seen or met OBL face to face? pfffft

OBL is said to have a kidney disease. That would be enough to alter his appearence...if he were sick......

And I won't discredit a link simply because of it's name. You can't judge a book by it's cover, nor a website by it's link.

I did however take a look for myself. They seem to link mostly to their own pages (imagine that).
I saw a lot of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** honestly, and articles written by people with strong opinions, not to be interpreted as fact.

However, as soon as I saw links to articles like the following:

- WTC - A controlled collapse
- WTC Wheres the 2000 degree inferno?

It discredited itself enough for me, and I couldn't stomach much more.

Thanks but no thanks, your link and that site are nothing more than conspiricy therorists and spreading FUD, rumors, half truths, and other make-believe...Mr. Rogers style. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, they could tell me all about how the holocaust never happened, or how we didn't really walk on the moon......

--cheers

the WTC is a little off topic. when you say the WTC - A controlled collapse do you mean 1, 2 or 7(7 was not hit by the way) seven fell uniformly mean all supports fell at once. I have studied the news coverage of the collapses of 1 and 2 as well and they fall very uniformly as well. why did WTC 2 (I think, the second one hit though) was the first to fall, despite the fact most of the jet fuel flew out into the air and burned up. (hence the fireball) the fires were burning much longer in the first tower hit yet fell first. and WTC 7 wasn't hit by any planes, yet it collapsed (coincedently, the guy that owned the building took out a huge terrorism insurance policy, the first such policy on any WTC building) please actually look at the evidence before making judgement on it as a "conspiracy theory" (I know, it's hard to realize you have been lied to) also, most of the links on WRH are from international news agencies.

besides, a conspiracy theory is a theory, (a beholding, spectacle, contemplation, speculation, fr. ? a spectator, ? to see, view. See Theater.] 1. A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice; hypothesis; speculation) about a conspiracy ( a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an act; a plot to carry out some act) the term is used to stop all discussion of the act (such as 9/11)
regarding the moon: mike hates people that insist we never went to the moon. he does call the amount of jews killed in the holocaust into wuestion though (as do many thinking people. (did you know it is illegal in some european countries, punishable by jail time, to even suggest the holocaust never happened? why? but that belongs else where) but this is off topic, and belongs on another thread.


you should look at the photos at the link I provided, the claim the man in the CV is false. it is obvious he is darker skinned (not a symtom of kidney disease) I want to see proof that kidney disease can alter your appearance (such as shortening of the nose, (vertically) weight gain, darkening of skin, etc...) the EVIDENCE appears that the man in the CV is NOT OBL.

You've got to remember that Osama ages likle the rest of us. Add to the fact that if he has been hiding in caves, he hasn't had much food & his medical condition (kidney problem) effects him as well

I want to see proof of any of these conspiracy theories.

You yourself say they are just theories.

Let's get some facts, huh?

Mike

Just when I was going to cite the Art Bell show as a source.

Absolutely. I'm not subscribing to any of the conspiracy theories without proof - including the one being put out by the Bush administration.

comparisons of osama and "osama":
http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/FakeOBLTapeInfo.html

http://www.geocities.com/muslimtruthAQSA/V...Video_Fake.html

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/oblcrew/fake1.htm

http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?postid=71957

http://www.mbpolitics.com/obl/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

and info on kidney disease:
http://www.kidney.ca/pdfs/lwkd-e/2-1.pdf

http://www.lifeoptions.org/patient/ckdinfo/index.shtml

http://www.kidney.org.uk/main/faqs.html

also, If he has had very little food logic would dictate he lose weight, not gain it. the man vlaimed to be osama in the CV is fatter then any other photo of the real osama. his skin is darker then the real one as well, kidney disease makes you paler then normal. it is an obvious fake, and not a good one at that.

Thank UB. I needed a good laugh!!

I love that big toothy grin of his

I clicked two of those links comparing the two Osama's. LOL. the pic on the front page in the first link, is so totally and completely photoshop'd, it's not even funny.

I clicked another link..the SCI one...and saw the exact same pic.

I think someone is learning the fine art of photoshoping!

(quantity doesn't replace quality)

--cheers

The fake Osama is actually one of the aliens from the planet Niburu.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1705000/video/ this is the video, (crappy qaulity though) perhaps they photoshopped it to help clear the photo up some what. (it looks like it has been sharpened)

The link doesn't work.

Al Qaeda has been attacking Americans for the last 10 years. The first WTC attack, Khobar Towers, Somalia, the bombings of two American embassies, the attack on the USS Cole...

I personally believe Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, but even if they weren't, they still need to be destroyed. It should have been done a long time ago.

Paladin, this thread is about specifically addressing the evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Do you have any evidence to support your personal feelings about Bin Laden and 9/11?

It was a long time ago that Bush Sr., who was head of the CIA, saw to it that OBL was trained and helped equip his terrorist network to combat communist Russia. Later there was bad relations between OBL and Bush Sr. prior to the Gulf war in 1991 when OBL was exiled from Saudi Arabia because he wanted to fight the conflict with Saddam himself and called the bull#### lie made by Dick Cheney claiming that our military would only be stationed there for as long as it needed to be. But given the circumstance of the 9/11 crisis, OBL is an automatic scapegoat providing the power of assumption motivated by fear and confusion. With that alone, what more evidence is needed? Just to provoke more anxiety, Bush Jr. will demand that you buy into the fear that OBL and his Al Qaeda network is connected with Saddam despite the known fact that OBL hates Saddam. Once again, if Americans fear is based upon assumption what more evidence do they need?

Possibilities are infinite and Bush is not omnipotent, when reason fails to develop a solid resolution, follow the money!

I think you are WAY off the mark my friend. At the time when the Soviets were invading Afghanistran to expand themselves, Al-Queda NEVER EXISTED.

Osama was just another Freedom Fighter back then as well.

The group of Freedom Fighters who we armed during that conflict were just a bunch of regular afghanis fighting for their country. Also, they were a mix of who we now know as the Northern Alliance, The Taliban, & Al-Queda.



Where is proof of this?

Al Quada is but just one terrorist network, but if you were to reread what I had posted you should have gathered that my point wasn't about Bush Sr. sponsoring a specific terrorist group, which I didn't specificly say Al Quada but rather OBL, but the fact Bush Sr. sponsored terrorism at all to begin with. To try an pin-point me as wrong on a fact that you had to stretch from the previous post by Paladin is an example of [PERSONAL ATTACK DELETED]. And by saying Al Quada never existed back then does not absolve anything. Terrorism still existed and Bush Sr. funded it.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Oh, and the proof? You ever read books? Try reading Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky. Want to know what is great about that book? It was written before 9/11. You ever attend college? Go ask a history or political science professor and they are likely going to tell you that this is old news. But then if you continue to dispute sources and facts then please do not ask me for proof when it is not proof that you want.

How did Bush Sr. fund terrorism? He funded a bunch of unarmed afghanies who were defending their homeland against the Soviets. How was Bush Sr. to know that the young OBL & other afghanies were gonna start targeting Americans in a decade? He didn't. He was doing his job as part of the CIA & that was kicking the Soviets' butts by getting the help of locals of the country that they were invading



In September. I'm a Senior in High School & will be graduating in May.



how did i stretch from the point? It was said that "Bush Sr., who was head of the CIA, saw to it that OBL was trained and helped equip his terrorist network to combat communist Russia." I mentioned that Al-queda didn't exist then. I believed that that was what he was getting to when he said "OBL & his terrorist network"

And i do take great offense to being personally attacked...


*Attack removed. Offense noted.

Closed for committee review.









...and we're back...

Carry over from a conversation on Al Qaida claims credit for Blackout, Yeah Yeah Yeah, it was us!

What part of - "He says he turned on his radio in advance to listen to coverage of the attacks and that he underestimated the damage that would be inflicted on the World Trade Center" do ya'll not understand?

He is admitting that he had prior knowledge of and had been involved in estimating the damage that would occur, thus indicating he was involved in the planning.

Are we debating semantics here?

Do you or do you not believe that Al Qaeda was involved in the planning and carrying out of 9/11?



More links:

Osama, Yes I did it.

Bin Laden Claims September 11: Al-Jazeera

There are two major issues to discuss here, firstly what exactly is the relationship between Al Queida, Osama Bin Laden and the American government, including the CIA and the Bush dynasty. This has important ramifications on what exactly happened on 9/11.

Secondly we need to clarify what exactly happened on 9/11 and who was responsible for those attacks.

This article gives overwhelming proof that the Administration did know about 9/11: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/911_redux.html.

The question is, were Bush, Rumsfeld etc passive collaborators of the terrorist attack or was the attack planned and orchestrated using Islamic cells and the CIA?

Last thought…

Hang on, I thought that Saddam did 9/11?

Having foreknowledge of an event does not make one responsible, beladonna. That and praise for the attacks is pretty much all your links provide, in spite of misleading headlines. There seems never to have been any real evidence offered to prove the guilt of Osama or his militant group regarding the September 11 attacks.

This isn't to say I think him an innocuous target, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that he or al-Qaeda were in fact responsible for the attacks on America that day. I won't say with confidence that they didn't either, but I'm curious why -- if we have so much evidence, as the administration claims -- haven't we revealed it? It seems tenuous at best.

To buttress what Abs said, folks like goamerica have rubbished proclamations of responsibly for attacks by radical Islamic groups in the recent power cuts (so they seem), so just because a few Islamists claim 9/11, doesn’t mean it was true.

I don't think there is even a connection between the CIA and Al-Queda except that SOME of Al-Queda's members, before they became Al-Queda, were trained to fight the Soviets by the CIA.

I don't think the CIA had psychic powers to determine that the people they were training would soon become terrorist members



ABS:


CBSNEWS Article



They trained in Al-Queda Training Camps in Afghanistan

Like Abs, I can't say for sure one way or the other. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that al-Qaeda was involved - especially evidence so incontrovertable that we would use it to justify abandoning international law in order to oust the Taliban. Please follow the links in the first posting to this thread for answers to your "What part of [whatever] don't you understand?"

A 112-page document drawn up by Ramzi Binalshibh, of Al Qaeda, and released by Qatar-based TV station Al Jazeera, admits that the organisation was involved in the terrorist attacks in the USA on September 11th and warns of a wave of new terrorist activities.

http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2002/0...9/10/36235.html

If admissions aren't evidence enough, what would be acceptable evidence?

An admission. One. By a guy "alleged" and "suspected" to be a member of al-Qaeda. A full year after the attack and over nine months after the conquest of Afghanistan.

What would be "enough" would be the evidence which compelled our leadship to announce al-Qaeda's guilt within hours of the attack. What would be "enough" would be the evidence on which we contravened international law by refusing to provide the Taliban with our reasons for suspecting al-Qaeda before delivering our (illegal) ultimatum. What would be "enough" would be the evidence which lead us to launch an invasion, oust the government of a sovereign state, and lay waste to its infrastructure.

I don't dispute that since those actions, a few compelling indications of al-Qaeda complicity have emerged. What I want to know is whether it is now our national policy to act first and try to find evidence later. This was clearly the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conquest of Afghanistan may one day prove to have been justified (though, again, there's no evidence that that's where bin Laden - or even Binalshibh - were at the time of the September 11 attack), just as it looks as though the conquest of Iraq may never prove to have been justified - at least not on the basis of the reasons stated by our administration.

I am not sorry to see al-Qaeda in a bit of disarray. I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein out of power. I am sorry that the US has become the world's vigilante, acting on scant or fictitious "intelligence". We may prove to have been right about al-Qaeda, if not Afghanistan. We were clearly wrong about Iraq. What consequences might this administration's next mistake - or lie - have?

Whoa! There is is a thread for discussing this in light of recent developments. I would Urger you to check it out. I think it can open some ground next to that "clearly wrong" maybe a "probably" or even a "possibly"

As for the topic (this is going to be a rare post, watch carefully as I expound upon my own ignorance )

The topic is much more difficult to debate than Iraq. Without a prior inquiry (such a previous UN inspections) there is a relative lack when it comes to evidence. The basic issue is trust, the American people (and most of the nations of the world) believed the Bush Administration's claims about Afghanistan because of trust. As a result the Administration never felt pressure to present their case, so even if they have evidence we may never see it (and not necessarily because of some cover-up as may be implied). This put us at a disadvantage, I for one am not sure we will ever get proof of Afghanistan's involvement. So am I convinced? I act as if I am (so I might as well be) but really my lack on information makes it impossible to be convinced. I just try no to think about it...

The man trained at an Al-Queda camp AND was a protege of The 9/11 Mastermind. I think that is enough to convince a jury.

I am unearthing this thread to prove that Osama Bin Laden was connected to the 9/11 attacks. This following article, in my opinion, is the smoking gun:

9/11 Mastermind details original plans for 9/11



So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in conclusion, the follwing evidence that has come to light is reason enough to believe that the terrorist Mastermind, Osama Bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

The Defense rests your Honor

What an odd debate! Thanks for resurrecting it goamerica as I never would have seen it before. I love conspiracy theories so I'll add this to my collection. Funny stuff

Although I do agree that chap in the video looks a bit odd

That's what happens when you are waken up in the middle of the night with about a dozen or so heavley armed government forces, being arrested for planning the worst terrorist act in the history of mankind

Ok, this question baffles me. Are there those here who seriously doubt his guilt? If so, let's turn the question around:

What evidence is there he/they didn't do it?

And, even if there were to be any:

What evidence is there that the actions being taken against him/them aren't justified anyway?

Another question that also come to mind:

Why the sudden change in standards of evidence from what is being offered in the 'Impeach Bush' thread?

AP: Mastermind reveals 9/11 plot details raises an interesting question about standards of evidence... The charges against Osama Bin Laden in the fall of 2001 which led almost immediately to the war in Afghanistan are supported by goamerica, citing a CNN story dated "Monday, September 22, 2003 Posted: 2:12 PM EDT (1812 GMT)," which quotes an alleged mastermind of the 9/11 hijackings. According to the article,

So it would appear that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is now the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, has been in U.S. custody for 6 or 7 months; but his testimony is justification for a war which we started close to two years ago. Has the evidence against Mohammed risen to a standard of evidence yet, that will allow the USA to bring him to trial in a courtroom, or is he still being tried only in the press?

We'll likely not see him tried on these charges anytime soon, because George W. Bush would rather place the blame on a structural engineer who expected a worse case scenario of four floors collapsing in the World Trade Center. It would be an interesting question to ask of other structural engineers. How many floors should have collapsed at the World Trade Centers? How much damage should have occurred? How quickly should things have progressed? What automated fire fighting systems should have been in place in the WTC towers?


So we've started a couple of wars, made a valiant (but apparently unsuccessful) effort to kill Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, reduced a couple of nations to rubble, found no evidence of WMDs or imminent threat in Iraq, but did find a man in Iraq that claims he is the mastermind behind 9/11...

Bush is slipping in the polls again...

Should I try to prove that GWB's actions were justified anyway? Or should I try to show that his father is really the one responsible for the JFK assassination? It's possible the St. Valentine's day massacre was justified. Can we justify the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg. bombing? I'm sorry, but I see my role as a citizen, to be one of providing another check on the 3 branches of government. I shouldn't have to provide spin for a President who has taken preemptive actions against sovereign nations, that are unprecedented in our history. George W. Bush is not sitting at a desk which just has a computer with video games on it; he has with him the nuclear launch codes which could destroy the world. Until he is impeached, or voted out of office, he is the acting President of the United States. Is he sane enough to realize that nuclear weapons are dangerous? Is he willing to invade another country to raise his approval ratings? Wars, executions, irreversible actions shouldn't be "justified anyway," they should be justified beforehand with hard, reliable facts!

He was found in Pakistan.

This article of mine is the proof that Osama is behind the 9/11 attacks. The article says it right there