Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death

First topic message reminder :

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)

I think most of that stuff can be explained by coincidence, mistakes, and the general sloppiness and confusion of any catastrophe of that size ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think most of that stuff can be explained by coincidence, mistakes, and the general sloppiness and confusion of any catastrophe of that size ...

Oh come on Ben, you are journalist, how the hell would they know it was going to go down 20 minutes later.  Watch that video (the first one about the Pentagon).  I have never been a conspiracy nut, but there is stuff in that video that your government have desperately tried to keep quiet about.

If a passenger plane had hit the pentagon at that spot and flown in at that angle then it would have torn huge grooves into the grass and left wing and tail marks on The wall... not just made a nice meat round hole about the size of a double Decker bus!



Also it is said that all the cctv footage from all the shops/buildings in The local area were quickly confiscated by the authorities and as yet, given that there must have been plenty of available footage of what happened that day at The pentagon, one dodgy bit has been shown so far, the couple of still images supposedly from a car park camera...



Building seven was also reportedly housing some top FBI teams doing an investigation into billions of dollars worth of high level fraud/corruption at The time... all conveniently destroyed and all records gone too!!!


That would be handy for some people I'm sure...

Tommy, I have to agree. There is so much more on that video on the Pentagon, you really need to look at it. (Pauses for thought, fuck me, I'm agreeing with Tommy lol)

Fuck me!!!


I've got veya AND sassy agreeing with me tonight!!!


Either they're becoming more sensible or I am starting to lose the plot and posting nonsense...!?

No, you are questioning the right things for a change lol!!! Bush was RW remember, and he is the one who knew what was happening.

I'm off to bed, the shock's too much!!!! Night.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think most of that stuff can be explained by coincidence, mistakes, and the general sloppiness and confusion of any catastrophe of that size ...

Of course it can, you have people like Tommy and sassy both extreme in their views, so what do you expect.
Both are very gullible and no matter how many times you explain they are wrong, they bury their heads in the sand even further. It is amusing I must add, they fail to look at all the evidence and go off conspiracies and why does sassy do this? Well she is a Islamist apologist. She like many Muslims think the US killed their own people which mocks the memory of those who died on the terrorist attacks of 9/11 etc.
She does not care ad why I have little time for people who insult the dead as she does.
She looks at the acts with the Mccann case, but here does not want to, because she has such a hate of the US as she is a complete apologist for Islamic terrorism. Only terrorist apologists try to deny Al-Qaeda committed 9/11.

Listen, there are lots of documents, statements and photos etc supporting both sides of the 9/11 and london bombings etc

It all depends upon whether you believe the "official" versions which have a lot to lose and plenty to gain or the independent (and lots of them) versions (including videos and statements by people WHO WERE THERE!) who have nothing to lose or gain.

Up to you.
I prefer to use my common sense.

eddie wrote:Listen, there are lots of documents, statements and photos etc supporting both sides of the 9/11 and london bombings etc

It all depends upon whether you believe the "official" versions which have a lot to lose and plenty to gain or the independent (and lots of them) versions (including videos and statements by people WHO WERE THERE!) who have nothing to lose or gain.

Up to you.
I prefer to use my common sense.

Believe the offical version?
Sorry Eddie, its a case of looking at the evidence of which you are not doing and going off poor claims made by cranks, who have been soundly debunked. What you are doing is ignoring where they have and still holding onto incorrect claims.

eddie wrote:

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.

Really?
Which shows you are ignoring replies debunking this poor claim.

Here it is again:

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

The pentgon crash made me doubt. I just cannot believe a plane hit the building.
Going to watch the video too, looks interesting.

No wing marks, no tail marks, no large grooves cut into the grass by the fuselage Or engines etc!?


Just a nice neat circle hole about the size of a double deck bus...

I just learned that some idiot at Sky News reported that "we've just heard that the entire eastern seaboard of the US has been destroyed in a terrorist attack."

Again, mistakes, confusion, mix-ups, panic, fear, chaos ... basically the fog of war.

The news media as a whole got a lot wrong that morning -- there were reports of car bombs going off, of 10 hijacked planes in the air.

Also found this:

The news agency Reuters have given this statement to the BBC:

"On September 11, 2001, Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Centre, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

The BBC correspondent at the centre of the controversy, Jane Standley, has never talked about this before.

She told The Conspiracy Files that she had just arrived in New York. She had never heard of Tower 7, and did not recognise it in the New York skyline. On the day she had precious little information available.

"It's very unfortunate," she said "that this whole conspiracy kind of I think rather ridiculous situation has grown out of what's really a very small and very honest mistake."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm#9

Watch sassys video, it's three hours long, but watch it.
Then come back and see what you say.

eddie wrote:Watch sassys video, it's three hours long, but watch it.
Then come back and see what you say.

That it is bollocks.
How about actually looking at the real evidence which is irrefutable.
Sorry but you ate insulting those who have died claiming a conspiracy Eddie and I find that appalling when the evidence is staggering to who carried out the attacks. All you are doing is mocking their deaths claiming the most insane accusations.
Like I say you have not looked at the real evidence just like Sassy and you both watch a video or other deranged claims on the net and wrongly become convinced.
That is not being objective but swayed without ever really looking at all the evidence at all.

Dodge there are enough "facts" on both sides - so I'll say it again, it depends on whom you believe.

Isn't it possible that the "facts" you read are "facts" made up by the American powers that be?

Why do you assume that everything you're told by government, media and "powers that be" is true?

Ps why did you change your name again! Bloody trying to confuse me!! Lol

eddie wrote:Dodge there are enough "facts" on both sides - so I'll say it again, it depends on whom you believe.

Isn't it possible that the "facts" you read are "facts" made up  by the American powers that be?

Why do you assume that everything you're told by government, media and "powers that be" is true?

Ps why did you change your name again! Bloody trying to confuse me!! Lol

Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

Explain the little hole at the pentagon and no wing or tail marks...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Explain the little hole at the pentagon and no wing or tail marks...?

What is there to explain?
Are you that stupid?
Can you explain all the other evidence showing a plane did crash into the building?
This is why you are so utterly stuipid

The Pentagon

At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.


FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows
Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

The pictures of the pentagon don't show any corroborating evidence of the claim that a passenger plane was involved.



Only show a nice neat round hole about The size of a double deck bus but no wing or tail marks or grooves in grass that would be present if plane hit at that point and trajectory...

Tommy Monk wrote:The pictures of the pentagon don't show any corroborating evidence of the claim that a passenger plane was involved.



Only show a nice neat round hole about The size of a double deck bus but no wing or tail marks or grooves in grass that would be present if plane hit at that point and trajectory...

Then you are a complete idiot as seen.
All evidence points to a plane hitting the pentagon
You can keep denying the facts only because you are a sheep, a follower of other idiots

Heard the story, saw the pictures, doesn't add up...




Also, a plane would be loaded with fuel that would have covered the impact area and burned for a while... the car park camera stills only show a brief flash...

Tommy Monk wrote:Heard the story, saw the pictures, doesn't add up...




Also, a plane would be loaded with fuel that would have covered the impact area and burned for a while... the car park camera stills only show a brief flash...

I am not surprised it does not add up to you, when you think men did not land on the moon.
Lie I said, you are a sheep to other sheep and cannot think for yourself

No wing marks, no tail marks and no burning fuel marks...

Tommy Monk wrote:No wing marks, no tail marks and no burning fuel marks...

Explain the following:

Dodge, the bottom of the engines on a passenger plane are normally lower down than the rest of the aircraft and fuselage.


Only kept above ground level when the whole craft is standing on its landing gear.



If a plane went into the pentagon as claimed at that height and trajectory, low enough for wings to clip lamp posts, then the bottom of the engines would have torn large grooves into the surrounding grass area upon its approach to building.


This is not seen in the subsequent real footage from the event.


Your video post is mainly an animated production piece.


Very little real footage of event and even that little bit that was shown actually confirms the low trajectory of the impact vehicle and confirms that grooves from engines and fuselage should be expected to be found on surrounding grass area if the impact vehicle was actually that of the type of aircraft that is claimed.



Also, don't you think it a little strange that given this was the pentagon and one of the most high security buildings in the USA, and would subsequently be jam packed with security cameras looking out in all directions... why is It that no conclusive video evidence of aircraft approach and impact has been released still to This date!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, the bottom of the engines on a passenger plane are normally lower down than the rest of the aircraft and fuselage. Only kept above ground level when the whole craft is standing on its landing gear. If a plane went into the pentagon as claimed at that height and trajectory, low enough for wings to clip lamp posts,  then the bottom of the engines would have torn large grooves into the surrounding grass area upon its approach to building. This is not seen in the subsequent real footage from the event.
Your video post is mainly an animated production piece.Very little real footage of event and even that little bit that was shown actually confirms the low trajectory of the impact vehicle and confirms that grooves from engines and fuselage should be expected to be found on surrounding grass area if the impact vehicle was actually that of the type of aircraft that is claimed.Also, don't you think it a little strange that given this was the pentagon and one of the most high security buildings in the USA, and would subsequently be jam packed with security cameras looking out in all directions... why is It that no conclusive video evidence of aircraft approach and impact has been released still to This date!!!???

Bullshit  alert which did not explain any of the facts posted in the video which proves my points on how conspiracy idiots when confronted with facts make even bigger idiotic claims.
So lets post some more facts for you to explain why you are a complete and utter sheep

Explain the previous facts and then these facts:

This proves my point on conspiracy idiots, that they never look at the facts and when presented with the facts they have no answer to them. They instead offer more bullshit to explain away their paranoia. Like I say when you look at the evidence there is no case for a conspiracy, but sadly some need it to feel important in their own lives.
Now that is what is really sad.





Night all

Your video was mostly cartoon animation dodge... why do you continue to avoid the points I raise...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Your video was mostly cartoon animation dodge... why do you continue to avoid the points I raise...!?

You had no points and you ignore facts.
Facts of which you still cannot explain now in two videos.
I do not need to do anything other than ask you to explain and counter the facts, which of yet you have failed to do.
Raising anomalies you have been bought into does not explain away facts presented to you.
Stop being a wally and answer the facts presented to you in the video's

Facts or cartoon animations dodge!?



I have raised legitimate points of question...



Still waiting for answers...

Tommy Monk wrote:Facts or cartoon animations dodge!?
I have raised legitimate points of question...
Still waiting for answers...

You are right again, I am waiting for answers to the facts which you are avoiding.
Why can you not explain the facts presented to you Tommy?
I have no need to do anything other than present the facts which again you have no explanation for.
So yes I am still waiting for answers to them Tommy.
Stop dodging the facts and answer them.
The onus is on you to disprove the evidence I have presented to you

You have shown a cartoon animation dodge...



Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:You have shown a cartoon animation dodge...
ave a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???

I have two video's presenting facts which you cannot counter.
Like I said, you cannot present any answers to facts.
Its no good asking to do anything when you cannot explain the facts presented to you Tommy.
Like I say, you poorly deflect and cannot answer.

Try again

Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???



Simple question dodge...!?

Now I really am going to bed, best you respond to the facts, or we know again how much you are full of bullshit Tommy

Later's

Tommy Monk wrote:Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???
Simple question dodge...!?

That does not answer the facts presented to you.
A poor deflection again.
Respond to the facts I presented
Simple questions you refuse to answer
So its no point asking me daft questions you have no idea on or an understanding of yourself.

One last time I will as you.
Explain away the facts which at every turn you have avoided

I have raised a question that you cannot answer...




Why can't you answer this simple question dodge...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:I have raised a question that you cannot answer...




Why can't you answer this simple question dodge...!?

That was answered if you had watched the videos, oh dear.
I have raised countless facts you cannot  answer.










































Why can  you not answer them Tommy?












































































Is it because you are special?

Tommy Monk wrote:

No wing marks, no tail marks, no large grooves cut into the grass by the fuselage Or engines etc!?


Just a nice neat circle hole about the size of a double deck bus...

What got me, the Pentagon, arguably one of the most secure buildings in the USA and not one single piece of
CCTV showing the plane on approach??

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

No wing marks, no tail marks, no large grooves cut into the grass by the fuselage Or engines etc!?


Just a nice neat circle hole about the size of a double deck bus...

What got me, the Pentagon, arguably one of the most secure buildings in the USA and not one single piece of
CCTV showing the plane on approach??

What gets me is you clearly did not watch the video then and how you can explain away hundreds of witnesses who did?
How you do explain so many people being part of a conspiracy and keeping up such a supposed claim to a lie?
So I will ask of you what I asked of Tommy.
How do you explain away all the evidence which clearly points to terrorists?

Do you know the worst thing other than insulting the victims of this terrorism is that you are all excusing and are apologists to Islamic terrorism.

That's a good point actually didge, people who don't believe 9/11 or even 7/7 were acts of Islamist terrorism should therefore think we are wasting time trying to stop Islamist terror attacks in the west- since by default there has never been a major one yet...

Funny how the opposite is usually the case.

Eilzel wrote:That's a good point actually didge, people who don't believe 9/11 or even 7/7 were acts of Islamist terrorism should therefore think we are wasting time trying to stop Islamist terror attacks in the west- since by default there has never been a major one yet...

Funny how the opposite is usually the case.

Exactly and I find it insulting that they are trying to excuse Al-Qaeda from committing this attack, which the evidence clearly points to them carrying out this attrocity.

They may also want to explain the following:



Philippine Airlines Flight 434 1994 al-Queda test run for Operation Bojinka, in which a passenger was killed and 747 controls seriously damaged by a liquid explosive packed into contact lens solution bottles containing nitroglycerin. Bomb was assembled from parts in hand luggage by Ramzi Yousef, who also built and detonated the WTC 1993 bomb.
Bojinka plot al-Queda plot to destroy several airliners over the Pacific Ocean in 1995 using liquid explosives. Elements of Oplan Bojinka inspired both the September 11 attack and the August 2006 plot to bomb transatlantic flights.


The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale three-phase attack by Islamists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to occur in January 1995. The attack was to include the assassination of Pope John Paul II, the bombing of 11 airliners in flight from Asia to the United States (which would kill approximately 4,000 passengers and shut down air travel around the world), and the crashing of a plane into the headquarters of the CIA in Fairfax County, Virginia. Despite careful planning, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6–7, 1995. Yousef and Mohammed were unable to stage any of the three attacks but did kill one person and injure scores detonating several test bombs on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 (which nearly caused enough damage to result in the destruction of the aircraft), in a Filipino shopping mall and theater.



As I say the facts easily dispell the islamic terrorist apologists on here.

Tommy Monk wrote:Have a look at a few pictures of actual real passenger planes... then tell us how the edge of a wing can be low enough to clip lamp posts without the bottom of the engines chewing large grooves out of the grass too!!!???



Simple question dodge...!?

Simple question dodge...!?


And yes Nems... I have already asked about The lack of camera footage from what is one of the most secure and camera ridden buildings in the world!

Finding the truth is not an insult to the victims. Anyone telling you otherwise is an irrational idiot and can be ignored.

Architects, engineers and scientists claim that the official version has many holes and covered in lies.

http://www.ae911truth.org

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org

Scientific theory on Wtc7 collapse:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

And it was 9/11that was used as a reason for the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have resulted in the cluster fuck all over the middle east today.


I was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Finding the truth is not an insult to the victims. Anyone telling you otherwise is an irrational idiot and can be ignored.

Architects, engineers and scientists claim that the official version has many holes and covered in lies.

http://www.ae911truth.org

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org

Scientific theory on Wtc7 collapse:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

OMG nearly fell over laughing.
Again nothing is actually refuting this was a terrorist attack and some of the biggest deniers of 9/11 are Muslims themselves funnilly enough.
Yes it is insulting the victims to again go off stupidty as you are doing.

Wasn't one or two of the alleged hijackers found to have not been involved or died as they popped up alive and well elsewhere?





Still waiting for an answer to previous post dodge...