Reply #150: Semantics 101

[Flatulo]

Rex Tomb said "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Nowhere in this statement does the FBI spokesman claim that the FBI doesn't *believe* that bin Laden was complicit. It simply says what it says. No hard evidence. What's 'hard' evidence? I dunno - fingerprints, eyewitnesss, DNA, etc. Of course they don't have any hard evidence. He was nowhere near the crime scene.

That means that all the bin Laden audio/video is not being taken as 'hard evidence', including the first denial video and the subsequent 'confession' videos.

In their zeal to prove that anyone but the actual terrorists are guilty, the Truth Movement chooses to present this single statement as somehow exonerating bin Laden completely, and by implication, blaming ... BushCo. This is quite dishonest, but typical, and consistent with other statements that are used as Proof that 9/11 was an inside job, like Rumsfield's statement that a 'missile' hit the Pentagon.

OK, now on to our little discussion. You have utterly and totally failed to prove that the confession video is a fake, and I have utterly and completely failed to prove that it is not. I don't expect this will change soon, and the 'confession' video will continue to be quite controversial. One theory that I have not heard spoken of is that perhaps bin Laden *had* gained fluid weight due to his failing kidneys. Perhaps he was on steroidal medicine that causes the head to swell. What I don't see the Truth Movement addressing is the identities of his confederates in the video. There seems to be no dispute that al-Zawahiri is present at the meeting. Why would the al Qaeda #2 sit down with a fake and pose for the camera?

> Why does the FBI not believe that OBL was involved with the attacks?

This statement is utterly unsupported. It is quite a leap to go from 'no hard evidence' to 'we think he's innocent'. If you have any official FBI statements that actually proclaim bin Laden's innocence, please present them.

Now, I told you earlier that I believed that bin Laden was fucking with us in the initial denial tape. I would further postulate that the Taliban did not share his zeal over a potential US invasion of their country and probably pressured him to issue a denial.

Would you be so kind as to share with me why you think all the subsequent post-October '01 audio and video where bin Laden claims responsibility are unimportant?