Did Osama Bin Laden ever actually admit to 9/11?

by eddie Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:23 am

First topic message reminder :

Defenders of the 'official story' like to point out to the skeptics of 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden was caught on video proudly confessing to the crime in front of a group of his peers. The now famous 'confession' video was released in December of 2001 by the Department of Defense under growing international pressure to provide definitive proof tying Bin Laden to 9/11. And the defenders of the government's narrative present this oft-broadcast video as tidy proof of that narrative's validity. But as with so much of the 'evidence' covered at length in this paper, this 'definitive' proof is riddled with conflicting facts, quantum leaps in judgment, and, ultimately, inadvertent support not for the official story, but for the very skepticism about 9/11 that the 'proof' was meant to quell.

First of all, Bin Laden's initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

We've been asked to accept without question his other statements of 'confession'. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:

"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"

These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people - including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. - who have a working familiarity with the 'confession' video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the 'confession' is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake. The man shown in the video, though bearded, Arabic, and of darkish complexion, is much heavier than all known photos and videos of the actual Bin Laden. The man in the video is seen writing something down with his right hand. Bin Laden is well-known to be left-handed. And there are scores of other reasons to question the validity of the tape. In fact, "the FBI's page on bin Laden as a 'Most Wanted Terrorist' does not list him as wanted for 9/11, and when asked why, a FBI spokesman said, 'because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11'." (Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pg. 21, David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007.) For a detailed analysis on the bin Laden tapes, click here or here.

But even if we take the hypothesis, for the moment, that the tape is real, then the government would suddenly find itself subject to an even more damning series of questions than if the tape was a fake. Because according to a recent investigation by journalist Ed Haas, the Bin Laden 'confession' video was not, as originally reported, acquired in November 2001. It was acquired in late September 2001, before the invasion of Afghanistan commenced. And if this is true, George W. Bush and Tony Blair could find themselves in deep, deep trouble. Because if this September timeline of receiving the tape is true, based on well-established precedents of international law, Bush and Blair are subject to execution for crimes against humanity.

Read more
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_19.htm

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:33 pm

I'd really like to see that, so drink up and find it lol

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:36 pm

Clearly you and eddie must be having confabs on this.
As you have both now turned to the exact same claim as a point today.

Eddie's post:
(You dismissed all the statements from the 9/11 firefighters that said they heard explosions just before the towers fell!)

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10226-15-important-questions-about-the-charlston-shooting#198912

What does sassy start off basing her point on.

For example, only two years ago video of firefighters talking on 9/11 that said bombs went off in the towers before it collapsed was finally very reluctantly released:

But hey, it could just be a coincidence. As lets face it. They may have reached the same conspiracy claim, to post after I have exhausted countless already. I take in all factors and just will assume that even though they have continue to argue the same new points each day. I know they do not need to confer to debate this. That would be giving me one hell of a compliment. Which of course I am sure they would never allow even inadvertently to compliment me this way lol

Like I said yesterday, Snowden and Assange are about the best proof going 9/11 is real

Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the firemen saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, we can be fairly safe to say the things I mentioned are good candidates to explain what the firemen heard. Even they think so...

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Here is a fireman saying it could have been "electrical explosions".

What a transformer explosion looks like...

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.
Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center

Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.

The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm

by Irn Bru Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:29 am

sassy wrote:I'd really like to see that, so drink up and find it lol

Sorry about the delay - here it is...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxhHk-kM0huWcjlFTVNUOTVhMEU/edit

There's a fait bit to read.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:31 am

Irn Bru wrote:
sassy wrote:I'd really like to see that, so drink up and find it lol

Sorry about the delay - here it is...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxhHk-kM0huWcjlFTVNUOTVhMEU/edit

There's a fait bit to read.

Thanks, just brought it up, having a read.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:44 am

I've skim read that, FUCKING HELL!!!! 'Give us 20 years and we'll take over your media and destroy your country'. And the stuff they had!

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:45 am

NEW YORK (AP) — Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law offered a rare glimpse of the al-Qaida leader in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, recounting during surprise testimony Wednesday in a Manhattan courtroom how the two met that night in a cave in Afghanistan.

“Did you learn about what happened … the attacks on the United States?” the son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, recalled bin Laden asking him.

“We are the ones who did it.”

The testimony came as Abu Ghaith’s trial on charges he conspired to kill Americans and aid al-Qaida as a spokesman for the terrorist group took a dramatic turn. His decision to take the witness stand was announced by his lawyer, Stanley Cohen, who surprised a nearly empty courtroom that quickly filled with spectators as word spread.

Abu Ghaith testified that bin Laden seemed worried that night and asked what he thought would happen next. Abu Ghaith said he predicted America “will not settle until it accomplishes two things: to kill you and topple the state of the Taliban.”

Bin Laden responded: “‘You’re being too pessimistic,’” Abu Ghaith recalled.

Bin Laden then offered the onetime imam a job that would gain him infamy as well as a place in the inner circle of the world’s most wanted terrorist. “I want to deliver a message to the world,” Abu Ghaith said bin Laden told him. “… I want you to deliver that message.”

The testimony was a rare gambit by the defense, a last-ditch effort to counter a mountain of evidence against Abu Ghaith, including an alleged confession and videos showing him sitting beside Bin Laden on Sept. 12, 2001, and another in which he warned Americans that “the storm of airplanes will not abate.” The defense has never disputed that Abu Ghaith associated with bin Laden after 9/11, but it contends he was recruited as a religious teacher and orator, and had no role in plotting more attacks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/19/chilling-conversation-about-911-between-osama-bin-laden-and-his-son-in-law-revealed/

So that was bin Laden's cohort testifying that bin Laden admitted the attacks -- as part of an attempt to reduce his possible sentence for his own role in al Qaeda.

Either it's the truth, or we have an amazingly convoluted and ridiculous theatrical production being played out in a Manhattan courtroom ...

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:46 am

Have you read the FBI file on the Israeli's in the white van Ben the Irn has put on. It's mind boggling.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:06 am

It appears Didge, who poo-pooed the 'white van with Israelis', when faced with the FBI file about that subject, shuts up. LOL

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:16 am

sassy wrote:It appears Didge, who poo-pooed the 'white van with Israelis', when faced with the FBI file about that subject, shuts up. LOL

PMSL

Show me any posts where I say Israeli's were not arrested or in a white van? lol
The FBI files just prove how incredibly paranoid you really are
I have read this and it points people working overtime to try and make something fit they create and invent in thei own minds as you do

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:17 am

Oh bless him, desperate or what!

by Original Quill Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:18 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
NEW YORK (AP) — Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law offered a rare glimpse of the al-Qaida leader in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, recounting during surprise testimony Wednesday in a Manhattan courtroom how the two met that night in a cave in Afghanistan.

“Did you learn about what happened … the attacks on the United States?” the son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, recalled bin Laden asking him.

“We are the ones who did it.”

The testimony came as Abu Ghaith’s trial on charges he conspired to kill Americans and aid al-Qaida as a spokesman for the terrorist group took a dramatic turn. His decision to take the witness stand was announced by his lawyer, Stanley Cohen, who surprised a nearly empty courtroom that quickly filled with spectators as word spread.

Abu Ghaith testified that bin Laden seemed worried that night and asked what he thought would happen next. Abu Ghaith said he predicted America “will not settle until it accomplishes two things: to kill you and topple the state of the Taliban.”

Bin Laden responded: “‘You’re being too pessimistic,’” Abu Ghaith recalled.

Bin Laden then offered the onetime imam a job that would gain him infamy as well as a place in the inner circle of the world’s most wanted terrorist. “I want to deliver a message to the world,” Abu Ghaith said bin Laden told him. “… I want you to deliver that message.”

The testimony was a rare gambit by the defense, a last-ditch effort to counter a mountain of evidence against Abu Ghaith, including an alleged confession and videos showing him sitting beside Bin Laden on Sept. 12, 2001, and another in which he warned Americans that “the storm of airplanes will not abate.” The defense has never disputed that Abu Ghaith associated with bin Laden after 9/11, but it contends he was recruited as a religious teacher and orator, and had no role in plotting more attacks.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/19/chilling-conversation-about-911-between-osama-bin-laden-and-his-son-in-law-revealed/

So that was bin Laden's cohort testifying that bin Laden admitted the attacks -- as part of an attempt to reduce his possible sentence for his own role in al Qaeda.

Either it's the truth, or we have an amazingly convoluted and ridiculous theatrical production being played out in a Manhattan courtroom ...

Do you believe it? Because if so, I find it depicts an amazingly unsure bin Laden, who might have just leart what his minions were up to.

There's no doubt that bin Laden was realizing and assessing his own responsibility in that conversation, or at least that it all would lead back to his own boots. Now, it's really hearsay within hearsay, and we in turn only have a written transcript, but to me it depicts a remarkably insecure person hesitantly asking about the responses of others...as if he were contemplating it for the first time. His comment--“You’re being too pessimistic”--could be read as jaw-jutting confidence, or it could be reassuring a family member that they would survive...it could even be read as wishful dismissiveness. In any case, I've always taken bin Laden's discussion to be questioning, not affirming.

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:25 am

I guess what I'm trying to say with that is that I would think al Qaeda members on trial would say "We didn't do it!" if they didn't. I don't remember one courtroom quote in which an al Qaeda member denied the group's responsibility for 9/11, though of course I haven't combed through all the testimony that was ever given -- and some was in secret as well.

Just seems to me like in general, AQ has responded "Hell yes and we're not done" when asked whether they carried out the attacks.

Edit -- to expand on my first point, if you think you could get the death penalty, why not deny carrying out the attacks? Unless you want to go into a scenario where they're told to claim responsibility, go through mock trials and then get sneaked out of the country instead of punished ...

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:26 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I guess what I'm trying to say with that is that I would think al Qaeda members on trial would say "We didn't do it!" if they didn't. I don't remember one courtroom quote in which an al Qaeda member denied the group's responsibility for 9/11, though of course I haven't combed through all the testimony that was ever given -- and some was in secret as well.

Just seems to me like in general, AQ has responded "Hell yes and we're not done" when asked whether they carried out the attacks.

Nope, he denied it, apart from the tape which really doesn't appear to be him, having so many differences.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:33 am

In any case, the Israeli's caught in that van with:

Bomb Suts

Explosive residue

Swabs

Tickets for them all out of the USA next day

Thousands of dollars

Notice to quit their premises 10 Sept

Forged documents

Expired visas

They were illegally in the USA

Thay continually lied

They failed lie detector tests

All of them arrived in the USA originally from South America

Later one of their vans also stopped heading down the hghway towards the site where FL93 crashed

They had connections to a company in Florida that had connectionsd with the firm involved in the training of the Hijackers

and pictures that showed them CELEBRATING the explosions (as stated in the FBI report)

Went on TV and said they had been sent to record the incident.

So - HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND WHY WERE THEY CELEBRATING IT AND WHY DID NETANYAHU SAY IT WAS A GREAT THING FOR ISRAEL?

by Original Quill Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:42 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I guess what I'm trying to say with that is that I would think al Qaeda members on trial would say "We didn't do it!" if they didn't. I don't remember one courtroom quote in which an al Qaeda member denied the group's responsibility for 9/11, though of course I haven't combed through all the testimony that was ever given -- and some was in secret as well.

Just seems to me like in general, AQ has responded "Hell yes and we're not done" when asked whether they carried out the attacks.

Edit -- to expand on my first point, if you think you could get the death penalty, why not deny carrying out the attacks? Unless you want to go into a scenario where they're told to claim responsibility, go through mock trials and then get sneaked out of the country instead of punished ...

I think they were ambivalent as to the truth. Something big had just happened, and on one level all of al-Qaeda would have been ecstatic...claiming credit, etc. At the same time, on another level, they could have been just as amazed as all of us, and wondering WTF?

This reading of the conversation could feed into the 'set-up' thesis, as well as 'the-left-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-right-hand-is-doing' thesis. But I've always felt that bin Laden was telling the truth when he said he was surprised.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:48 am

Sassy picked that all out after reading such a long in deapth report or go off what a conspiracy site claims?
I will leave people to easily decide what she just did.
Even if anyone takes the above evidence as real.

What does it prove?

Nothing.

The FBI released them

Its Israeli haters trying to make anything fit to explain their paranoia.

No bombs hit any of the towers, so the conspiracy brigade see a claim to bomb residue and then shout eureka to something that is a face palm time. So there is no bomb evidence, bang goes sassy's insane theory. They then have to invent a bomb in one of the towers to explain their theory of Israeli involvement. Soon any little point I provide makes sassy's claims a million times harder. The reason, the theory will not add up.
Jut as it would not add up for any Al Qaeda to lie over 9/11.
Many Muslims believe 9/11 is a cover up.
It would serve Al Qaeda far better if they deny they carried this out and then lending weight to the conspiracy loons. Even more so to the view America is on a crusade to destroy Islam. That if true would serve the a million times better in the world spotlight than saying they did carry it out.
Hence why people who but into many conspiracies never think through anything
They admit to it, showing this and countless other evidence is ignored hinging on an FBI report which as seen falls at the first hurdle as no bomb was used to attack each tower.

I posted a load of videos with science in them to help you understand them sassy.
Best you learnt to watch them.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:34 am

Right it has taken me long enough to read through this report by the FBI and has led me to one conclusion.
Sassy either lies through her arse or is very gullible.

So lets look at her claims:

No Bomb Suits are listed on the FBI report

There was nothing listed that stated explosive residue. This comes from the mention of the word fabric, which has been taken by loons and used to declare as bomb residue. Yep I am astounded as well, now that a fabric sample has been later declared explosive residue, even though the FBI makes no such claim. There is no evidence for any bombs going off in the towers. So you can see how fabricated these claims get and how easily they fall apart

Just on the first two claims alone, we start to see an engineered fabrication by those who hate the Jews wishing to invent and fabricate information not even found on the FBI report. If ever there was a reason not to trust a poster who has just been caught out lying or at the very least exposed for stupidity by believing things other conspiracy sites say.

Everyone can check out the reports for themselves and see for themselves Sassy was telling a big fat loads of porkies. So we have gone from a false claim to no military aircraft's. This was debunked. Firemen testimony not read properly. On just these two points alone they have been shown to be wrong and do we see an admission to be wrong by the conspiracy theorists?

No, they ignore the evidence refuting their claim and then move onto the next crack pot hypothesis. Its is easy to catch someone like sassy out when they make falsified claims

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:37 am

Best you read that FBI report, listen to the firefighters saying a bomb went off in the lobby and it came down on them BEFORE the building came down, and listen to the Israelis saying (confirmed in Israel by B'tselem) that they were there TO RECORD THE EVENT and therefore knew it was going to happen.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:38 am

BTW, that's not the only report.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:39 am

sassy wrote:Best you read that FBI report, listen to the firefighters saying a bomb went off in the lobby and it came down on them BEFORE the building came down, and listen to the Israelis saying (confirmed in Israel by B'tselem) that they were there TO RECORD THE EVENT and therefore knew it was going to happen.

Oh but I did read them Sassy and it proves you have not.
I just exposed you for either being extremely gullible or lying.
As I say your whole claims easily fall apart once scrutinized.
Yes I showed you about how you were wrong about the Firemen as well.

Oh dear lol

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:40 am

sassy wrote:BTW, that's not the only report.

Oh there is another secret secret squirrel FBI report then Sassy

Did Osama Bin Laden ever actually admit to 9/11? - Page 2 3489511464

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:43 am

Oh dear.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:45 am

sassy wrote:Oh dear.

Did Osama Bin Laden ever actually admit to 9/11? - Page 2 Epic-facepalm-funny-meme-funny-823317954

by eddie Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:28 am

Didge you are so fixed in some of your views that you would never ever admit to saying "Hmmm, perhaps there's something I have actually missed...?"

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:24 pm

eddie wrote:Didge you are so fixed in some of your views that you would never ever admit to saying "Hmmm, perhaps there's something I have actually missed...?"

You mean after I show you are mistaken and how at each turn you fail to acknowledge when I have by ignoring the evidence I present and then move onto something else?
The fact is I have stated quite clearly not everything is known. So again to turn this into more about me when you fail yourself and worse ignore the evidence which clearly refutes the countless claims made is more worrying. Or how you need many of these claims to fit to make your conspiracies work. They easily fall apart.

The main points though are well known and backed by countless evidence.
As I say and the biggest evidence is from Al Qaeda themselves who admit to this attack. It would serve them far better to deny and blame the US which would serve their claim far better to their claim the US is out to destroy Islam. What better way to claim this by showing they would be willing to kill their own citizens. It would serve their propaganda machine far better, but because conspiracy theorists only think one dimensionally they fail to factor these points.

AS I say the worst thing about all of this is how it insults the memory of those who died of which is doing them no justice at all and is serving to make a mockery of their deaths faced with the over whelming evidence that Al Qaeda carried out this attack. I mean what next, was the shootings in Tunisia carried out by a Mossad agent? Its appalling that some people are apologists for not only Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, they are seeking to claim the US or Israel killed these people.
People who think this should be ashamed of themselves faced with the evidence. The reason they are convinced and have been convinced is based on ulterior motives.

In Sassy's case she hates Israeli Jews and when you have a hate for something, it is only a short step to easily believing a false claim to them carrying out the attack. That is why understanding psychology is so important here, because you can easily understand what has swayed someone to believe a conspiracy theory. She is the same with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All she looks at is dead children, not the reasons how their deaths come about through the actions and intentions of Hamas who deny its people bomb shelters and command them not to leave when warned by Israel of an impending attack. She looks at pictures of dead children and that convinces her. It is a very one dimensional thought process to looking at a conflict. This is easily seen how where I can and do say Israel has committed wrongs, you can see in many of the debates, she and others avoid or defend and constantly fail to condemn Hamas for the countless wrongs they commit. If you do not believe me, look at many of the debates.

by eddie Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:48 pm

I have also shown you are mistaken Didge

At least I say I don't know what happened.
You however, are so brainwashed, you won't even contemplate a different option.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:04 pm

eddie wrote:I have also shown you are mistaken Didge

At least I say I don't know what happened.
You however, are so brainwashed, you won't even contemplate a different option.

Really, you have shown I am mistaken? Maybe in the land of pixies and fairy dust, but not on this thread.
Its nothing to do with being brainwashed. There is no reason at all for me to believe something else happened. Why would there be? What ever you believe about 9/11 does not hinder or stop you functioning daily. If you feel it does, then you clearly have issues, as it certainly does not stop me getting on with my life. If in some inconceivable world, where you are in fact right on this claim of yours, what would it achieve? That I would be wrong. The problem is Eddie, I would not mind that I was wrong. We can be wrong on things, but again the evidence is so overwhelming that Al Qaeda carried out this attack, it is nothing short of ignorance to deny this. There may well be questions still to be answered. Many times I have agreed to that. This though does not change the main facts and evidence which prove Al Qaeda carried out this attack.

The only people brainwashed is those who believe in the conspiracy. They are so obsessed as you are Eddie, they ignore damning evidence, which we have seen you constantly do and then attempt to ignore this and move on to yet another claim. It shows you cannot even admit faults in your claims. I can admit some things do seem odd. Odd does not mean though or change any of the main facts. It just means some things come across to the person as unusual. Again my life is not dependent on what happened on 9/11, by this it means I can happily be right or wrong about the event. My life's needs are not dependent on this. For the person who buys this conspiracy, they have to be right, they will not allow to admit to themselves they could be wrong.

There is the difference between us.

by eddie Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:47 pm

Erm I am debating something that interests me Didge?
I wouldn't imagine anyone in their right mind cannot function in their daily lives because of a theory they might believe?
Bit confused as to what you're saying when you're quite renowned for going on for 22 pages about the same point. Does that mean you can't function on a daily basis?

Really not quite sure what to make of that post.

Anyway it's clear you won't even look at something different to what you've been indoctrinated to believe so take it from this point on, that this thread possibly want interest you that much lol!

Ps there is nothing "damming" about the evidence you've produced! It's no more "damming" than any other evidence on this thread. What a Face

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:06 pm

eddie wrote:Erm I am debating something that interests me Didge?
I wouldn't imagine anyone in their right mind cannot function in their daily lives because of a theory they might believe?
Bit confused as to what you're saying when you're quite renowned for going on for 22 pages about the same point. Does that mean you can't function on a daily basis?

Really not quite sure what to make of that post.

Anyway it's clear you won't even look at something different to what you've been indoctrinated to believe so take it from this point on, that this thread possibly want interest you that much

Ps there is nothing "damming" about the evidence you've produced! It's no more "damming" than any other evidence on this thread.

There lies your problem Eddie.
You do not see how such evidence makes many conspiracies fall apart and shows you admit you are easily blinded.
You are right in the fact there is little interest trying to rationalize with people so obsessed with conspiracies. You could show them a real time video that starts with filming Al Qaeda planning the attack, carrying out the attack and you would still claim otherwise.
Sheep follow other sheep, they have no free will because they are dictated too by the conspiracy. People not governed by conspiracies cannot admit they may be wrong. I can function very well because I am able to drum home a point where it is irrefutable Eddie. That is why people get worked up over that. They do not like I am easily able to argue my points well. If I could not function, I would never be able to let any thread finish, yet I do and I admit when wrong.
I just feel sorry that you are so easily convinced by others Eddie who use charisma and not facts to convince you.

Have a good evening. Its really just better to watch you multiple conspiracy theorists need of constantly trying to convince each other you think you are right. Conspiracies need a consensus by people to believe in them. That is telling in itself. Can you see the flaw in being like that? I and others not fooled by conspiracies do not need a consensus of others, we just go by the evidence of which we draw our own conclusions on an event.

All the best Eddie, I am not going to waste my time further on something you do not even come to any form of reasoning on here where at least I state freely there is some things odd here. You recognise no errors on your part.

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:14 pm

i don't think he had anything to do it i think it was planned by the US .

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:19 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:i don't think he had anything to do it i think it was planned by the US .

That is up to you Dibs.
You do realise that if you end up being found to be wrong on your claim, it would make you an apologist to Al Qaeda who committed the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history?
I see the evidence of Islamic extremism daily, and even before 9/11 which many here have not explained as to why. Before and after 9/11 terrorists have been committing atrocities and by denying it was Al Qaeda, you are feeding into the Islamic extremist propaganda machine that promotes the same conspiracy.

Have a good evening Dibs, am now off out to dinner

by Guest Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:21 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:i don't think he had anything to do it i think it was planned by the US .

That is up to you Dibs.
You do realise that if you end up being found to be wrong on your claim, it would make you an apologist to Al Qaeda who committed the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history?
I see the evidence of Islamic extremism daily, and even before 9/11 which many here have not explained as to why. Before and after 9/11 terrorists have been committing atrocities and by denying it was Al Qaeda, you are feeding into the Islamic extremist propaganda machine that promotes the same conspiracy.

Have a good evening Dibs, am now off out to dinner

well i just think 9.11 was an inside job .

have a nice evening and enjoy your dinner

by Irn Bru Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:18 am

Cuchulain wrote:Right it has taken me long enough to read through this report by the FBI and has led me to one conclusion.
Sassy either lies through her arse or is very gullible.

So lets look at her claims:

No Bomb Suits are listed on the FBI report

There was nothing listed that stated explosive residue. This comes from the mention of the word fabric, which has been taken by loons and used to declare as bomb residue. Yep I am astounded as well, now that a fabric sample has been later declared explosive residue, even though the FBI makes no such claim. There is no evidence for any bombs going off in the towers. So you can see how fabricated these claims get and how easily they fall apart

Just on the first two claims alone, we start to see an engineered fabrication by those who hate the Jews wishing to invent and fabricate information not even found on the FBI report. If ever there was a reason not to trust a poster who has just been caught out lying or at the very least exposed for stupidity by believing things other conspiracy sites say.

Everyone can check out the reports for themselves and see for themselves Sassy was telling a big fat loads of porkies. So we have gone from a false claim to no military aircraft's. This was debunked. Firemen testimony not read properly. On just these two points alone they have been shown to be wrong and do we see an admission to be wrong by the conspiracy theorists?

No, they ignore the evidence refuting their claim and then move onto the next crack pot hypothesis. Its is easy to catch someone like sassy out when they make falsified claims

I uploaded the FBI report. I'm no conspiracy theorist but every word listed in what was found is in that report is there.

I don't know what was going on but there is definately something going on with these guys.

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:42 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Right it has taken me long enough to read through this report by the FBI and has led me to one conclusion.
Sassy either lies through her arse or is very gullible.

So lets look at her claims:

No Bomb Suits are listed on the FBI report

There was nothing listed that stated explosive residue. This comes from the mention of the word fabric, which has been taken by loons and used to declare as bomb residue. Yep I am astounded as well, now that a fabric sample has been later declared explosive residue, even though the FBI makes no such claim. There is no evidence for any bombs going off in the towers. So you can see how fabricated these claims get and how easily they fall apart

Just on the first two claims alone, we start to see an engineered fabrication by those who hate the Jews wishing to invent and fabricate information not even found on the FBI report. If ever there was a reason not to trust a poster who has just been caught out lying or at the very least exposed for stupidity by believing things other conspiracy sites say.

Everyone can check out the reports for themselves and see for themselves Sassy was telling a big fat loads of porkies. So we have gone from a false claim to no military aircraft's. This was debunked. Firemen testimony not read properly. On just these two points alone they have been shown to be wrong and do we see an admission to be wrong by the conspiracy theorists?

No, they ignore the evidence refuting their claim and then move onto the next crack pot hypothesis. Its is easy to catch someone like sassy out when they make falsified claims

I uploaded the FBI report. I'm no conspiracy theorist but every word listed in what was found is in that report is there.

I don't know what was going on but there is definately something going on with these guys.

Really?
Coming from the man who uses snipit and cannot copy this claim to bomb suits and bomb residue.
There is nothing on the report that claims either.
The only reason you think something is going on is you hate Israel, if you say otherwise then you are a liar Irn. Lets have some honesty eh Irn from you.

by eddie Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:15 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:i don't think he had anything to do it i think it was planned by the US .

That is up to you Dibs.
You do realise that if you end up being found to be wrong on your claim, it would make you an apologist to Al Qaeda who committed the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history?
I see the evidence of Islamic extremism daily, and even before 9/11 which many here have not explained as to why. Before and after 9/11 terrorists have been committing atrocities and by denying it was Al Qaeda, you are feeding into the Islamic extremist propaganda machine that promotes the same conspiracy.

Have a good evening Dibs, am now off out to dinner

Just because someone thinks it was the U.S. Government (or other) does not make them an Al Qaeda apologist!!!

Jeez. Wooden thinking again! Everything is either black or white with you, there are no shades of grey!

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:29 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

That is up to you Dibs.
You do realise that if you end up being found to be wrong on your claim, it would make you an apologist to Al Qaeda who committed the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history?
I see the evidence of Islamic extremism daily, and even before 9/11 which many here have not explained as to why. Before and after 9/11 terrorists have been committing atrocities and by denying it was Al Qaeda, you are feeding into the Islamic extremist propaganda machine that promotes the same conspiracy.

Have a good evening Dibs, am now off out to dinner

Just because someone thinks it was the U.S. Government (or other) does not make them an Al Qaeda apologist!!!

Jeez. Wooden thinking again! Everything is either black or white with you, there are no shades of grey!

LMAO

It does not matter what she thinks.
If the facts are that Al Qaeda carried out the attack, it makes her an apologist of them.

Simple even for you Eddie, which even makes you one as well.

by eddie Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:22 pm

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:01 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Right it has taken me long enough to read through this report by the FBI and has led me to one conclusion.
Sassy either lies through her arse or is very gullible.

So lets look at her claims:

No Bomb Suits are listed on the FBI report

There was nothing listed that stated explosive residue. This comes from the mention of the word fabric, which has been taken by loons and used to declare as bomb residue. Yep I am astounded as well, now that a fabric sample has been later declared explosive residue, even though the FBI makes no such claim. There is no evidence for any bombs going off in the towers. So you can see how fabricated these claims get and how easily they fall apart

Just on the first two claims alone, we start to see an engineered fabrication by those who hate the Jews wishing to invent and fabricate information not even found on the FBI report. If ever there was a reason not to trust a poster who has just been caught out lying or at the very least exposed for stupidity by believing things other conspiracy sites say.

Everyone can check out the reports for themselves and see for themselves Sassy was telling a big fat loads of porkies. So we have gone from a false claim to no military aircraft's. This was debunked. Firemen testimony not read properly. On just these two points alone they have been shown to be wrong and do we see an admission to be wrong by the conspiracy theorists?

No, they ignore the evidence refuting their claim and then move onto the next crack pot hypothesis. Its is easy to catch someone like sassy out when they make falsified claims

I uploaded the FBI report. I'm no conspiracy theorist but every word listed in what was found is in that report is there.

I don't know what was going on but there is definately something going on with these guys.

Really?
Coming from the man who uses snipit and cannot copy this claim to bomb suits and bomb residue.
There is nothing on the report that claims either.
The only reason you think something is going on is you hate Israel, if you say otherwise then you are a liar Irn. Lets have some honesty eh Irn from you.

It's on page 7 of the report. Now perhaps you would pop over to the other thread and give me the page no. or section from the UN report where the UN commended Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them.

If you can't then it shows that you just made it up and have been lying all along.

If you are at work at the moment then maybe you can do it during your lunch break or after you clock out at 5 and get home.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:08 am

Page 7?
Oh my, where does it say they were found with bomb residue?
It says fabric sample, there is no tests stated that shows this is bomb residue and do you know why? The claim that it is was because of sniffer dogs alerting to the truck
Bomb suits is in brackets and is not on their itinerary for the Israelis it does not mean they are bomb sits, that was above on the page but the FBI listing of swaps showing you do not know even how to read a report.
Blimey are you that small minded Irn

Like I say Israeli haters just make up bullshit to fit thier propaganda

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:11 am

Cuchulain wrote:Page 7?
Oh my, where does it say they were found with bomb residue?
It says fabric sample, there is no tests stated that shows this is bomb residue and do you know why? The claim that it is was because of sniffer dogs alerting to the truck
Bomb suits is not on their itinerary for the Israelis, that was above on the page but the FBI listing of swaps showing you do not know even how to read a report

Like Israeli haters just make up bullshit to fit thier propaganda

The words Bomb Suits and explosive residue are mentioned in the report. You denied that Bomb Siuts were mentioned.

Now over to the other thread please.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:15 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Page 7?
Oh my, where does it say they were found with bomb residue?
It says fabric sample, there is no tests stated that shows this is bomb residue and do you know why? The claim that it is was because of sniffer dogs alerting to the truck
Bomb suits is not on their itinerary for the Israelis, that was above on the page but the FBI listing of swaps showing you do not know even how to read a report

Like Israeli haters just make up bullshit to fit thier propaganda

The words Bomb Suits and explosive residue are mentioned in the report. You denied that Bomb Siuts were mentioned.

Now over to the other thread please.

They are in brackets.
What does it say on the report about things being unspecified?
There is no bomb suits
Why are these words in brackets?
Because they are unspecified.
It shows your ignorance on reading reports

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:30 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Page 7?
Oh my, where does it say they were found with bomb residue?
It says fabric sample, there is no tests stated that shows this is bomb residue and do you know why? The claim that it is was because of sniffer dogs alerting to the truck
Bomb suits is not on their itinerary for the Israelis, that was above on the page but the FBI listing of swaps showing you do not know even how to read a report

Like Israeli haters just make up bullshit to fit thier propaganda

The words Bomb Suits and explosive residue are mentioned in the report. You denied that Bomb Siuts were mentioned.

Now over to the other thread please.

They are in brackets.
What does it say on the report about things being unspecified?
There is no bomb suits
Why are these words in brackets?
Because they are unspecified.
It shows your ignorance on reading reports

You don't know do you and according to you all that stuff is nothing to be concerned about? Thank goodness you have absolutely nothing to do with the security or safety of our country.

Now over tio the other thread please with the detail I asked for.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:33 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They are in brackets.
What does it say on the report about things being unspecified?
There is no bomb suits
Why are these words in brackets?
Because they are unspecified.
It shows your ignorance on reading reports

You don't know do you and according to you all that stuff is nothing to be concerned about? Thank goodness you have absolutely nothing to do with the security or safety of our country.

Now over tio the other thread please with the detail I asked for.

I know 1000 times more about the security of our country and as seen where I prove there is no evidence to your claim of bomb suits and bomb residue, where they are unspecified does not mean they are. Considering the FBI had found them near such an attack, its obvious such words can easily be brought up and questions which is why they were in brackets. It proves your ignorance, they never said these items were, but basically a possibility, which if you read the rest of the report which you clearly did not makes no claim that they were.

So run along Jew hater, you have been sussed out.

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:44 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

They are in brackets.
What does it say on the report about things being unspecified?
There is no bomb suits
Why are these words in brackets?
Because they are unspecified.
It shows your ignorance on reading reports

You don't know do you and according to you all that stuff is nothing to be concerned about? Thank goodness you have absolutely nothing to do with the security or safety of our country.

Now over tio the other thread please with the detail I asked for.

I know 1000 times more about the security of our country and as seen where I prove there is no evidence to your claim of bomb suits and bomb residue, where they are unspecified does not mean they are. Considering the FBI had found them near such an attack, its obvious such words can easily be brought up and questions which is why they were in brackets. It proves your ignorance, they never said these items were, but basically a possibility, which if you read the rest of the report which you clearly did not makes no claim that they were.

So run along Jew hater, you have been sussed out.

Yes, of course you do Didge but it's all in that litlle mind of your yours that lives in your world of fakery and fantasy.

Nothing to be concerned about is it - just like you said lol

Now over to the other thread please for the detail I asked for or do I have to wait 'til you get home after clocking out at 5?

Maybe your supervisor will let you away earler lol

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:46 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I know 1000 times more about the security of our country and as seen where I prove there is no evidence to your claim of bomb suits and bomb residue, where they are unspecified does not mean they are. Considering the FBI had found them near such an attack, its obvious such words can easily be brought up and questions which is why they were in brackets. It proves your ignorance, they never said these items were, but basically a possibility, which if you read the rest of the report which you clearly did not makes no claim that they were.

So run along Jew hater, you have been sussed out.

Yes, of course you do Didge but it's all in that litlle mind of your yours that lives in your world of fakery and fantasy.

Nothing to be concerned about is it - just like you said lol

Now over to the other thread please for the detail I asked for or do I have to wait 'til you get home after clocking out at 5?

Maybe your supervisor will let you away earler lol

Its not over to anything, you have the ability to read the report, if you do not believe me, find the evidence.
I love how you attempt to abuse your powers all the time.
Clearly you have an authority issue thinking you can boss people about.
Poor Irn, do your own homework, though as seen I get to work your strings very easily my little puppet

Laughing

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:11 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I know 1000 times more about the security of our country and as seen where I prove there is no evidence to your claim of bomb suits and bomb residue, where they are unspecified does not mean they are. Considering the FBI had found them near such an attack, its obvious such words can easily be brought up and questions which is why they were in brackets. It proves your ignorance, they never said these items were, but basically a possibility, which if you read the rest of the report which you clearly did not makes no claim that they were.

So run along Jew hater, you have been sussed out.

Yes, of course you do Didge but it's all in that litlle mind of your yours that lives in your world of fakery and fantasy.

Nothing to be concerned about is it - just like you said lol

Now over to the other thread please for the detail I asked for or do I have to wait 'til you get home after clocking out at 5?

Maybe your supervisor will let you away earler lol

Its not over to anything, you have the ability to read the report, if you do not believe me, find the evidence.
I love how you attempt to abuse your powers all the time.
Clearly you have an authority issue thinking you can boss people about.
Poor Irn, do your own homework, though as seen I get to work your strings very easily my little puppet

Cop out - you made it up and lied.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:12 am

lol you keep telling yourself that Irn, who thinks he knows more then experienced Army commanders.

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:20 am

Cuchulain wrote:lol you keep telling yourself that Irn, who thinks he knows more then experienced Army commanders.

I know enough to see that it isn't in the report and that you made it up and lied.

Anyway, I've got work to do and I'm sure you have as well in the hot air section that you are in.

Give my regards to your supervisor who is just a non-job shirker like yourself.

Maybe catch you later when you get a break for lunch or when you get home after clocking out lol

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:24 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:lol you keep telling yourself that Irn, who thinks he knows more then experienced Army commanders.

I know enough to see that it isn't in the report and that you made it up and lied.

Anyway, I've got work to do and I'm sure you have as well in the hot air section that you are in.

Give my regards to your supervisor who is just a non-job shirker like yourself.

Maybe catch you later when you get a break for lunch or when you get home after clocking out lol

Hilarious. You have no experience of being in the armed forces. I also have not served but those within my family have, so I do have some idea and hence my interest in Military History
They never lied about anything . What they said was factual where again you have never been able to deny that hamas does not build bomb shelters. It builds tunnels to attack Israel. I commands its citizens to stay after being warned through an idiotic belief of Martyrdom. All these things you ignore where Hamas is deliberately ensuring many civilian casualties
So no you have no utter clue as to what you are talking about. You do not want to believe the facts or can you counter what they have said
Our bless, you upset to the point you have to throw in the being at work card.
You really are one wet sap mate

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:50 pm

Didge wrote wrote:Hilarious. You have no experience of being in the armed forces. I also have not served but those within my family have, so I do have some idea and hence my interest in Military History

How do you know what I have done? You have no idea what I have done and you will never know in any detail because your security status isn't high enough lol
Well you didn't know that the 2nd Tank Regiment didn't serve in Suez when you said it did so so much for your knowledge on that one. I'll grant that you made a mistake instead of doing as you would do if it was the other way round by claiming it as an outright lie.

Didge wrote wrote:They never lied about anything . What they said was factual where again you have never been able to deny that hamas does not build bomb shelters. It builds tunnels to attack Israel. I commands its citizens to stay after being warned through an idiotic belief of Martyrdom. All these things you ignore where Hamas is deliberately ensuring many civilian casualties

It was you that was lying Didge when you said that the EU report commended Israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. The report never said that - you just made it up.
Of course tunnels a bulit in Gaza and no-one has ever disputed that.

Didge wrote wrote:So no you have no utter clue as to what you are talking about. You do not want to believe the facts or can you counter what they have said

There are no facts to support your blatant lie that the EU report commended israel on its efforts to minimize casualties and that lives were saved by them. Just admit it and I'll cut you a bit of slack and let you off the hook for doing it - fair enough?

Didge wrote wrote:Our bless, you upset to the point you have to throw in the being at work card.
You really are one wet sap mate

You really have a cheek calling what you do 'work' lol.

BTW and just as an aside - is SAP the platform your company uses to run its business systems?

by Sponsored content