Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death

http://yournewswire.com/mainstream-media-question-osama-bin-ladens-death-bbc-documentary/

The documentary, The Bin Laden Conspiracy, examines the popular conspiracy theory that Osama had died years before the U.S. allegedly ‘caught’ him and ‘killed’ him.

As reported extensively by alternative News websites such as ours, Osama is believed to have died in 2007, as admitted by Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister for Pakistan, in a television interview with the BBC.

In May 2011, when a team of US Navy SEALs stormed a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the world’s most wanted terror target, it became a definitive moment in Barack Obama’s presidency. Over the past four years, though, doubts about the official account of Osama bin Laden’s death have been raised – to the point where veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged that the whole story was fabricated.

The Pulitzer Prize-winner last month published a 10,000-word report, attempting to discredit the White House’s version. Far from the US acting alone and the raid being an act of American derring-do, Hersh suggests that Pakistan knew about it at the highest level, had been holding Bin Laden prisoner and struck a deal.

Now reporter Jane Corbin – who was on the ground in Abbottabad that night – examines the evidence. Corbin heads to Washington to meet Mike Morrell, CIA deputy director at the time, and uses a stash of newly released documents to reconstruct Bin Laden’s extraordinary life in the custom-built compound, where he lived for six years with his three wives and nine of his children. How did he remain under the radar and maintain security? Did he wear a cowboy hat to shield his face from satellite surveillance? Was an extensive collection of pornography seized, as the Americans have hinted? And was he still running al-Qaeda from his secret bunker?

The Bin Laden Conspiracy? is tonight on BBC Two at 10.00pm

( not sure if this was last nights TV? But you can watch it on catch up)

Some of the comments after this article are very amusing:

"What happened to flight 93 on 9/11? Why no pictures!
Like all American history....if they can't make it, they fake it"

"Why not capture bin laden and keep him alive as they did with Suddm Hussein? Makes no sense!
American always the heroes - of lies..!"

Both comments written by Americans btw


IMO I never ever believed the whole "killing of bin laden thing" nor that the 9/11 tragedy was committed by Muslims.

As the popular picture shows:

"Sir! The twin towers have been hit!!"

Bush: "I thought we were doing that tomorrow??"

"They should question it cause he died naturally years before they said they killed him, oh and most of the marine's who were supposed to have killed him if nota all are dead go figure!"

If you really want to blow your mind Eddie, watch this:



It's long but worth every second.

One thing is correct: Pakistan were involved.

Eds you're becoming a conspiracy nut ;-) x

Eilzel wrote:Eds you're becoming a conspiracy nut ;-) x

Hmmm, I've never ever believed they caught and killed bin laden - it's absolute bollocks.

And 9/11? I remain open-minded.

I question everything les and I disbelieve most people in power; don't you?
They're just puppets to the invisible power that lies beneath everything.

risingsun wrote:If you really want to blow your mind Eddie, watch this:



It's long but worth every second.

Thanks, I will definitely give it a go later tonight after little one is in bed sassy!

I do question everything.

But there is a difference between being skeptical and questioning, and automatically assuming that the media and state lie about everything.

Oh for goodness sake, the claims on 9/11 with conspiracies are a complete insult to the victims, even more so when many of the claims have been soundly debunked and most hinge on absurd reasoning. If anyone thinks its not Al-Qaeda, they truly need their heads examined, as the evidence is so damning. Which is the biggest point, most of the conspiracy theories on this ignore the countless evidence.

eddie wrote:Some of the comments after this article are very amusing:

"What happened to flight 93 on 9/11? Why no pictures!
Like all American history....if they can't make it, they fake it"

"Why not capture bin laden and  keep him alive as they did with Suddm Hussein? Makes no sense!
American always the heroes - of lies..!"

Both comments written by Americans btw


IMO I never ever believed the whole "killing of bin laden thing" nor that the 9/11 tragedy was committed by Muslims.

As the popular picture shows:

"Sir! The twin towers have been hit!!"

Bush: "I thought we were doing that tomorrow??"

There is one major flaw with your argument Eddie.
You have never properly looked at the evidence and only gone off what conspirators claims.
So to claim you keep an open mind on something when you really have not studied the evidence is not keeping an open mind at all, as it is going off poor claims made that have been vastly debunked.
An open mind would look at the countless evidence objectively first and not go off bit part claims, which all they try to do is sow the seed of doubt to then make people wrongly people believe in a conspiracy.

Right Eddie, explain to me how Al_Qaeda must be in on this conspiracy in regards to the death of their own leader when they announced his death also in line with the US assassination?
What benefit would it do them to also lie about his assassination?

eddie wrote:Some of the comments after this article are very amusing:

"What happened to flight 93 on 9/11? Why no pictures!
Like all American history....if they can't make it, they fake it"

The following photos were released at the Moussaoui trial in March/ April 2006 (see http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc).

Crash scene 1 Crash scene 2 Crash scene 3 Debris found in crater Flight 93 Debris 1 Flight 93 Debris 2 Flight 93 Debris 3 Flight 93 Debris 4 Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Flight 93 Flight Data Recorder Personal effects 1 Personal effects 2

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

"Mainstream News" ~ whoever they actually are ~  must have been having a very slow day, if they had time to visit this old chestnut, questioning bin Laden's death...

Lots of people think he died years ago of kidney disease...

Tommy Monk wrote:Lots of people think he died years ago of kidney disease...

Is that those who are at odds with President Obama also by any chance?
I dread to think what some of you would have been like just after WW2. Know doubt we would have conspiracies about Hitler dying of explosive flatulence in 1941 and that it was a conspiracy by Churchill and Stalin to wipe out Germany.

BBC reporting WTC7 building collapsing 20 minutes before it did, with it being clealy visible in the background

risingsun wrote:BBC reporting WTC7 building collapsing 20 minutes before it did, with it being clealy visible in the background

Cuckoo.....

Why do they choose to believe the more unlikely conspiracy story which suggests that at least some reporters of some news organizations were given a script? Especially when, much more logically, miscommunication could easily explain the video.
 
Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up??? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and let them report the collapse as they would have normally?
 
What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. [Edit: we now know they were monitoring the news from different outlets and that's where they learned of building 7.] According to the fire department, by 2:00PM they knew the building would soon collapse. Reporters KNEW this well before the collapse because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporters were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC, it may have simply been miscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'very sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this. Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico's Neanderthal man...)
Listen to Aaron Brown from CNN say the building collapsed or is collapsing with the building in the background.





http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Oh dear, that's about why it went down, yea right, not the fact that the BBC reported it going down before it did, with the building perfectly visible in the background.

Now you be a good boy and swallow all the crap the establishment feed you, and if you are lucky they will give you a spoon of sugar to take the bitterness away.

Belatucadros wrote:Why do they choose to believe the more unlikely conspiracy story which suggests that at least some reporters of some news organizations were given a script? Especially when, much more logically, miscommunication could easily explain the video.
 
Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up??? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and let them report the collapse as they would have normally?
 
What most likely, logically happened: While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. [Edit: we now know they were monitoring the news from different outlets and that's where they learned of building 7.] According to the fire department, by 2:00PM they knew the building would soon collapse. Reporters KNEW this well before the collapse because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporters were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC, it may have simply been miscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'very sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy".
It wouldn't be the first time reporters got something so completely wrong. They said it was a small plane at first, remember? They said Kerry choose Gephardt for VP, remember? They told the family members of trapped mine workers that their 13 loved ones were alive, all but one, when it was the other way around. Those are just a few glaring examples. I could go on... Reporters rush to be the first one with the news and often do a poor job of getting the facts straight. History is littered with examples of this. Even your average knuckle dragging, cave dwelling Neanderthal knows this. (My sincerest apologies Geico's Neanderthal man...)
Listen to Aaron Brown from CNN say the building collapsed or is collapsing with the building in the background.





http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

This is why conspiracy theories are daft then hinge on words, whilst ignoring every single piece of evidence.
They place their faith on a reporter who says basically unconfirmed information.
Good laugh though at what people are so gullible too

I think the theory he died years ago of kidney disease has been around longer than obomba has been president.

Tommy Monk wrote:I think the theory he died years ago of kidney disease has been around longer than obomba has been president.

I think your bullshit has been around longer than Hammurabi.

You claimed that people only say bin laden died years ago because they don't like obomba... but this theory has been around longer than obomba has been president... so it's you who are talking bullshit dodge!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:You claimed that people only say bin laden died years ago because they don't like obomba... but this theory has been around longer than obomba has been president... so it's you who are talking bullshit dodge!!!

Has it been around longer with the same people talking about it?
I doubt it, no doubt it was held by a handful of people lol, then the "I hate Obama brigade" Latched onto it.

Rubbish dodge!!!


If a president is trying to claim credit for leading an operation into finding and killing bin laden then they will be facing the counter story that he died years ago, which is a story that has been around years!!!



I remember a while back that there was talk of wheeling out the story of killing of bin laden But the press got wind of it and it was shelved only for obomba to wheel it out when he did.

Oh we are back to the bog standard reply;


"Rubbish Dodge"

Game over


Laters Tommy Blooper

If a president is trying to claim credit for leading an operation into finding and killing bin laden then they will be facing the counter story that he died years ago, which is a story that has been around years!!!

The story that bin Laden had been dead for years was mostly based on the theory that he had to have been hiding out in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and wouldn't have had access to the dialysis machine he needed to treat his kidney disease. Of course, if he really was in that Pakistani compound he would have had the machine.

Also complicating that theory is the fact that bin Laden released several authenticated tapes, commenting on contemporaneous events, after the "he's dead" story started circulating in conspiracy-theory circles.

I think it's a great thing to question the official narrative on anything, but you should have good reasons to. In this case, I don't see the logic adding up.

CTs will claim, "Well, they needed to cover up bin Laden's death so there'd still be a bogeyman to justify all the War on Terror, Patriot-Act crap they were doing." -- Except, every other top AQ leader who was captured or killed was trumpeted from on high by U.S. officials and media. -- And the official death story of bin Laden changed nothing. Nobody thought getting him was going to end the conflict between the U.S. and AQ (and allies).

Another problem I have with the "he was dead years ago" theory is the same problem I have with the "9/11 was an inside job" theory -- both would require an awful lot of people to remain silent about a really big thing, and I don't think people are capable of that, at least not in the long run. Particularly with 9/11, you have to first assume the Bush administration would be willing to kill thousands of people, including many Americans, on U.S. soil -- and then, even more unlikely, assume that they could get the hundreds of people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy to stay quiet about the roles they played in that massacre.

He was supposedly on deaths door about ten years ago... and these 'tapes' you are talking about have had serious questions raised about authenticity...

Tommy Monk wrote:He was supposedly on deaths door about ten years ago... and these 'tapes' you are talking about have had serious questions raised about authenticity...

By who? Are the people questioning their authenticity qualified to make that assessment?

And more importantly, why -- why would anyone cover up his death in the first place?

No doubt Tommy thinks Obama's a lizard man as well

Keeping the idea that he was still alive going was convenient...

Tommy Monk wrote:Keeping the idea that he was still alive going was convenient...

For you to attempt to keep some form of sanity?

darknessss wrote:No doubt Tommy thinks Obama's a lizard man as well

Maybe a Cyberman?

quick...rub him with gold dust.......

darknessss wrote:quick...rub him with gold dust.......

I fear it may have this effect mate if it was water:

Belatucadros wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Keeping the idea that he was still alive going was convenient...

For you to attempt to keep some form of sanity?

No, as a part of The argument for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars And their continuation ...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Keeping the idea that he was still alive going was convenient...

For you to attempt to keep some form of sanity?

No, as a part of The argument for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars And their continuation ...

But as I pointed out, nothing changed after bin Laden's death was announced. In fact, if anything things have gotten worse since then, with the rise of ISIS. Covering up bin Laden's death appeared to have no effect and could not have had an effect, so why cover it up? Who benefits?

And am I mistaken or are you implying that the West's war on Islamic terrorism isn't legit? That would be a big change for you ...

Nothing has changed since announcing his 'death'...?



Yeah ok...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing has changed since announcing his 'death'...?



Yeah ok...!

Nothing has changed in terms of how the U.S. and allies have executed the war on terror. Care to contradict me? Come back with details we can actually discuss, please.

risingsun wrote:BBC reporting WTC7 building collapsing 20 minutes before it did, with it being clealy visible in the background

I notice that no one has actually watched and commented on this?

And anyway, this thread was initially about Bin Laden being "killed" by the Americans.

It's almost like some people will actually be,is be it because "big powerful people" said so.

Ben_Reilly wrote:The story that bin Laden had been dead for years was mostly based on the theory that he had to have been hiding out in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and wouldn't have had access to the dialysis machine he needed to treat his kidney disease. Of course, if he really was in that Pakistani compound he would have had the machine.

Also complicating that theory is the fact that bin Laden released several authenticated tapes, commenting on contemporaneous events, after the "he's dead" story started circulating in conspiracy-theory circles.

I think it's a great thing to question the official narrative on anything, but you should have good reasons to. In this case, I don't see the logic adding up.

CTs will claim, "Well, they needed to cover up bin Laden's death so there'd still be a bogeyman to justify all the War on Terror, Patriot-Act crap they were doing." -- Except, every other top AQ leader who was captured or killed was trumpeted from on high by U.S. officials and media. -- And the official death story of bin Laden changed nothing. Nobody thought getting him was going to end the conflict between the U.S. and AQ (and allies).

Another problem I have with the "he was dead years ago" theory is the same problem I have with the "9/11 was an inside job" theory -- both would require an awful lot of people to remain silent about a really big thing, and I don't think people are capable of that, at least not in the long run. Particularly with 9/11, you have to first assume the Bush administration would be willing to kill thousands of people, including many Americans, on U.S. soil -- and then, even more unlikely, assume that they could get the hundreds of people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy to stay quiet about the roles they played in that massacre.

A lot of people did die after speaking out - some marines after Bin Laden dead story.

Also there are several accounts of firemen saying they heard explosions before the towers fell and several firemen saying the buildings would never have collapsed the way they did.

There is documentation on both sides of the theories - depends which one people are keen to believe in really, doesn't it?
Some are more susceptible to brainwashing than others.

All of that is interesting -- believe me, I used to think there was an inside job or cover-up years ago, before I had researched enough. None of it explains anything, though, and I still say, if you're going to accuse the U.S. government of slaughtering its own people, you have to have more to go on than this.

I'm sure the sounds coming from within an enormous building that was about to collapse would sound like deafening explosions; that only makes sense. Also, what qualifications does a firefighter have to say how buildings standing over 1,300 feet tall would collapse?

Nah, it's too wild a story to be believed on what has been presented thus far. I think if anything was covered up it was how inept the administration was both before and after the attacks.

Ben_Reilly wrote:All of that is interesting -- believe me, I used to think there was an inside job or cover-up years ago, before I had researched enough. None of it explains anything, though, and I still say, if you're going to accuse the U.S. government of slaughtering its own people, you have to have more to go on than this.

I'm sure the sounds coming from within an enormous building that was about to collapse would sound like deafening explosions; that only makes sense. Also, what qualifications does a firefighter have to say how buildings standing over 1,300 feet tall would collapse?

Nah, it's too wild a story to be believed on what has been presented thus far. I think if anything was covered up it was how inept the administration was both before and after the attacks.

Google the other side of it all
Military planes were advised not to fly that day.
Firefighters do know how buildings fall after fires Ben.

There's a few YouTube vids of them speaking

There was a big 'exercise' being run that day just like there was a similar exercise being run on The day of The London bombings doing an almost exact scenario.


There is talk of one of The alleged London bombers realising they were aeIoI set up and he managed to flee to docklands to try to get to one of the newspapers I think and was shot outside.


THe staff inside were told to keep away from the windows because of possible explosion blowing glass in so most didn't see the 'execution'.


Also rumour of tube explosion coming from underneath train carriage and blowing hole upwards... plus jean Charles demenzes rumoured to have seen something dodgy going on as he was a electrician working on underground at The time, was going to blow the whistle and that was why he was really targeted...

Guys, I've looked at that stuff. I watched Loose Change and 9/11-Press for Truth, watched the videos, read the websites, read one of David Ray Griffin's books, etc. The fact is, the most important arguments made in all of them have since been debunked.

Coming up with a flimsy excuse and then saying 'debunked' does not mean anything...


Which is what most of these claimed 'debunks' actually do...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Guys, I've looked at that stuff. I watched Loose Change and 9/11-Press for Truth, watched the videos, read the websites, read one of David Ray Griffin's books, etc. The fact is, the most important arguments made in all of them have since been debunked.

No they haven't.  Did you know about the white van packed full of explosive stopped by police in NY that day, and the fact they they were allowed to go?   Did you know about the esplosion by the fire station at the Pentagon which is on the video I posted? And you tell me how the BBC said WTC7 had gone down before it had, with a picture of it still up in the background.