|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 22, 2006 0:10:34 GMT -4
PhantomWolf: I want to hear what 9/11:insidejob has to say about this rather than you putting words in her mouth.
As much as I appreciate your "amen" I would like you to go back to the choir and let me try to reach the sinners.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 22, 2006 0:37:07 GMT -4
Now, if anyone wants to discuss topic (B), " Is OBL the man in the Jalalabad video," I would prefer you actually WATCH it first. My reference (9) (npr) has two versions, the one released by the DoD and a version that puts the OBL footage first and the other footage later. I have so far reviewed the latter. I'll get to the DoD release when I can. I hate Real Player.
There are three screenshots from this video widely circulated as a single graphic. The subtitles "we calculated" "the difference between" and "those who were" are underneath them.
"we calculated" falls at about 15:50 "The difference between" falls at about 32:06 "Those who were" probably came up while I was working ;D and missed it.
There is an odd artifact at 23:11. Can anyone explain what it is?
The version "in chronological order" (per npr comment) cuts at 34:14 to footage of another event.
I would like someone else to tell me what they see at 48:23, I'm not sure I trust my interpretation.
The end of the video sequence has an odd shadow event. I think this means the footage is of morning prayers, and again at noon, but I don't know what time they would be doing this. I don't see the cut.
Also, if anyone can indicate where to find better quality versions of this I'd like to know. The frame-rate alone is awful, much less the quality. It's like watching someone else's home videos through a viewfinder.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 22, 2006 3:51:47 GMT -4
I want to hear what 9/11:insidejob has to say about this rather than you putting words in her mouth.
I wasn't aware I was. I haven't even seen 9/11 in this thread.
As much as I appreciate your "amen" I would like you to go back to the choir and let me try to reach the sinners.
It wasn't an 'amen,' you asked "I would also like to ask if anyone has specific objections to the wikipedia article on OBL?'" I was pointing out a potential problem in it due to the part that says:
Some have said that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[14] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channeled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself [15].
a a potential way to invesigate it independantly. I didn't realise that this thread was being kept for a select few posters. Perhaps you should have noted that eariler.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 24, 2006 23:31:23 GMT -4
You're right. I'm sorry. I withdraw my comments.
In fact, I'm abandoning the thread. I wanted 9:ij to comment, but whatever. I guess she just wanted to troll.
By the way, I watched the entire video, and it's Osama. The few pictures taken out of context are also compressed vertically. Stretch them in photoshop for yourself and see it - I'm not bothering to post what I've done. It's too easy.
But I guess that's conspiracy theorists all over again: rely on distorted out-of-context information that feeds some kind of bizarre need for FUD.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 24, 2006 23:56:09 GMT -4
But I guess that's conspiracy theorists all over again: rely on distorted out-of-context information that feeds some kind of bizarre need for FUD.
Pretty much. I did also note that one of the images they used to show the "real" OBL came from the 2004 video where he admitted to the WTC attacks. Doh!
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jul 25, 2006 13:10:32 GMT -4
Hey 911:Inside Job, a little question for you. Can you believe it's possible for someone to hate the USA so much that they would preach jihad against it? Of course. If so, is it at least conceivable to you that Osama bin Laden is such a person?Preaching a jihad and pulling off a technically sophisticated act of terrorism are two different things. I don't believe OBL was preaching any jihads before 9-11 anyway. He was in the hospital on dialysis in July of that year. He was in no condition to mastermind a terrorist operation like 9-11. It was an inside job. He was the intended patsy, along with the alleged hijackers.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 25, 2006 13:46:33 GMT -4
Can you provide references to any of this? ObL had an international assembly of manpower and money in place to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. He broke away from the "mainstream" of the MAK running the mujahadeen in Afghanistan to expand his operations.
Five men with boxcutters is not a technically sophisticated act of terrorism. The results were dramatic, but the method was brilliant in it's simplicity, low-cost and unpredictability. Just because the commander is in the hospital doesn't prevent the troops from training in the field. Words like "mastermind" shortcut thinking. A real mastermind would have figured out how to keep us in fear. The 9/11 attack was technically simple and socially naive.
As I said above, the Jalalabad video does not indicate a "false Osama." I've watched the entire thing, twice. Have you? Or are you relying on the three-frame screenshot? The lighting is tricking the eye, and the screenshot images have been manipulated by third parties.
I think we've been told lies about the Jalalabad video, but I think it's because of the human intelligence operations required to bring it to us, not because the tape is a "fake Osama." I can identify two of the other people in the meeting, as well.
Thanks for joining the thread.
|
|
|
Post by yodaluver28 on Jul 25, 2006 18:05:19 GMT -4
Preaching jihad is a part of terrorism. Jihad is war. If a fatwa is issued declaring a jihad, that means they're declaring war on you. The only war Al Qaeda could ever hope to win against the west is a guerilla war involving various acts of terrorism.
As for 9/11, it was bold and shocking but it was not technically sophisticated in any way. It was really quite simple if you break it down. You take 20 men, well 19 since 1(Ramzi Binalshibh) was repeatedly refused an entry visa, have them subdue a handful of stewardesses and pilots by slitting at least one their throat's with a boxcutter and proceed to commandeer the cockpit. Once inside the cockpit, use their flight training to turn the planes and go to NYC or DC and crash them either into the two tallest buildings on Manhattan, right by the river, or into one of the largest buildings on Earth (The Pentagon).
Horrifying? Yes. Terrifying? Yes. Grotesque? Yes.
Technically sophisticated? No, not really. All they needed was a simple plan and enough men willing to carry it out to the letter and they succeeded by keeping it that simple.
Osama Bin Laden had been preaching jihad against the US since 1991 and in 1998, he and Ayman Al-Zawahiri issued a fatwa stating that Al Qaeda and Zawahiri's organization, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, were merging and declaring war on the US. This is some of the text from that fatwa:
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders :
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the holy mosque in Mecca from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.
This declaration went largely unnoticed since far too many people took Bin Laden as some guy in a cave with little reach and few followers. This was a huge misunderstanding of both Bin Laden and the violent extremism that is sweeping through the Arab and Muslim worlds.
We have no evidence to support this assertion, other than an unsourced anonymous allegation that he was in a hospital and visited by a CIA agent. The story has never been sourced to anyone either in the hospital or in the CIA office. The hospital has vehemently denied that Bin Laden was ever there, athough it is widely believed that Bin Laden suffers from kidney disease and has a portable hemo-dialysis machine taken from a hospital in Pakistan.
We have no way of knowing what condition Bin Laden's in. Dialysis does tend to make people extremely weak, but Bin Laden is a planner, financier, and supervisor. Some go so far as to assert that Bin Laden is little more than a wallet and a charismatic front-man to the far more stategic minded Zawahiri. In any case, Bin Laden had no role in 9/11 that would require extreme or even mild physical exertion. All he had to do was approve the mission, approve it's details, and provide the money that was sent to the operatives. Any intelligent person could do all of that from a hospital bed if need be. And we know that in December of 2001, he was ambulatory enough to flee Tora Bora and into Pakistan so there's no reason to believe that he wouldn't have been conscious and healthy enough to do his part before the attacks.
Okay, if this is true:
Is Bin Laden real or some fictional boogieman?
If Bin Laden is real, is he a "patsy" or is he a CIA stooge who is in on everything? Note: He can't be both.
Did Bin Laden issue the '98 fatwa or not?
Did Bin Laden authorize and fund the USS Cole bombing?
Did Bin Laden authorize and fund the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania?
Did Bin Laden authorize and fund the Bali bombings?
If Bin Laden doesn't exist and/or didn't authorize or fund any of these attacks who did? Is Zawahiri fake or on the payroll too or just Osama? How about Omar Abdel-Rahman? Ramzi Yousef? Mahmud Abouhalima?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 25, 2006 20:22:16 GMT -4
I really think minimizing Bin Laden and/or accusing him of being a patsy of the CIA are simply tactics--IMO there really is very little real evidence for it--to handwaive away the fact that he had motive, money, and smarts to carry out the attacks.
Which of course lessens the chance it was an inside job; a situation abhorrent to most 911 CTs.
It appears that even the chance that the US government didn't kill 3000 innocent people can be an unacceptable blow to some folks' worldview.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jul 25, 2006 21:20:46 GMT -4
You all can hand-wave all you want about how easy it is to: - fly 3 jets into 3 buildings by men with no flight experience, pulling in some cases G-forces that the planes' manual controls would not have allowed. All of the planes had the ability to be flown remotely, however. In that mode, there are no restrictions on flight maneuvers except what the plane is capable of.
- have the unprecedented collapse of 3 steel frame buildings allegedly due to fires, despite the appearance of molten steel before the collapse and demolition charges (squibs) seen and heard during collapse. Concrete and office furniture were uniformly shredded into powder, inconsistent with a simple pancake collapse.
- have various agencies run terror drills the exact same morning thus causing confusion as to whether the hijackings/radar images were real or not. Many jet fighters were out of the country due to these drills. This contributed to the virtual stand-down and lack of military response.
- have the rules of engagement changed shortly before 9-11 requiring all flight intercept orders be approved by the Sec. of Defense.
- have various politicians notified in advance not to fly that day. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets weeks before.
- the list goes on.
I call that a sophisticated operation. Sorry, just too many coincidences to be dumb luck on the part of the hijackers.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 25, 2006 21:38:29 GMT -4
I call that a sophisticated operation. Sorry, just too many coincidences to be dumb luck on the part of the hijackers.
If even half of those few points were true I might have agreed with you.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 25, 2006 22:13:46 GMT -4
What do you mean, “no flight experience”? They all had private pilots’ licences, and they all had some experience on jet simulators. But is there any proof that actually happened? “It’s possible” <> “It happened”. Fires AND plane impact. Are you trying to say that the plane impacts had no effect on the buildings? Why is it molten steel? Why can’t it be molten plastic? When the roof collapses in a building, the air in the floor is going to be compressed. Where is that air going to go? It’s going to blow out the windows. In what way? What’s so unusual about military people engaging in training exercises? No, the Secretary of Defense, not the VP. And in fact the previous rules required the same approval. www.911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html suggests otherwise. Ashcroft apparently flew on a commercial flight 8 days before the attack. That’s hardly “weeks”.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 25, 2006 22:19:41 GMT -4
[/li][li]have various politicians notified in advance not to fly that day. Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets weeks before.[/quote] If the government was involved in the hijackings they would have known exactly which flights would be hijacked, and therefore only needed to avoid getting on those specific planes. So why would Ashcroft need to stop taking commercial flights weeks before? At best you've shown they had prior knowledge of a potential terrorist plan to hijack planes, but not the details of that plan.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 25, 2006 22:58:59 GMT -4
I think that is the sadest thing about the CT's. They are all based on events and ideas that either didn't actually happen, or have been twisted to the point where they might as well have not happened, and then that baloney is given out as fact.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 26, 2006 0:20:54 GMT -4
[/li][li]fly 3 jets into 3 buildings ... pulling in some cases G-forces that the planes' manual controls would not have allowed. All of the planes had the ability to be flown remotely, however. In that mode, there are no restrictions on flight maneuvers except what the plane is capable of.[/quote] You don't happen to have any evidence to back this claim., do you? Please post what I think you're going to post, my floor needs cleaning and as long as you're available....
|
|