Bin Laden not connected with 9/11?

[Dangerman]

The FBI dosen't think he is:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

This does not make any sense, the FBI didn't find any hard evidence connect bin Laden to 9/11. What's going on here?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. There probably isn't any evidence linking him to anything.

The US was in league with the bastard throughout the 80's and has a pretty good idea about what he is capable of doing.

[Recursion]

6. It's a hard legal case to make...

Remember, Bin Laden is a fundraiser and administrator, and doesn't seem to have had any operational command for some time. It's a lot like trying to make a case against one of the KKK leaders when a bunch of white supremacist teenagers beat up somebody: he never actually told anyone "go and do this", so it's hard to pin legal culpability on him.

[NYC]

2. Excerpt:

Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11...

[WePurrsevere]

10. "Hard evidence"... *IF* Usama Bin Laden's "Confession Tape" is authentic

(which I must admit I have my doubts about) then I believe that normally it would be considered "hard evidence". Why not in this case?

This article has some interesting points ( http://tinyurl.com/z6deb ):

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

(FYI: The above is a repost of my response to a DU post yesterday about this topic. It was moved to the September 11th area of DU. ::sigh::)

[NJmaverick]

12. There are serious questions in how it was translated

That is why the tapes are useless, they don't say what bush claimed they say.

[WePurrsevere]

16. That's sort of one of my points. *IF* they were authentic & accurate then

wouldn't the FBI have him "Wanted" for 9-11? Since they didn't then they probably know that they're not authentic and/or accurate enough to stand up in real court of law.

HOWEVER BushCo had to have had the same info and must have known the same things and yet still they promoted the heck out of that tape as the real thing to the American people stirring up the already huge amount of anger and thirst for "justice" (revenge). This played on the American publics already heightened emotions so they would easily accept and even embrace invading the whole country of Afganistan to go after Bin Laden and the Taliban. IMO if there was not enough evidence to even bother taking it to a Grand Jury there was not enough evidence to invade Afganistan with guns blazing... much as we did Iraq.

Whether one believes that 9-11 was "LIHOP", "MIHOP" or that it was totally/mostly the fault Bin Laden and his Taliban followers it seems increasingly apparent that BushCo took full advantage of the American public's high emotional state afterwards. They LIED & MANIPULATED to take us into not one but two WARS with little to no real evidence.

BTW: Is there somewhere on the web that has a properly translated transcript of what was actually said on those tapes?

[NYC]

20. So was this one.

(moved to the 9/11 area)

I think it belongs in the "reasons excuses for invading foreign countries" area.

[hpot]

69. Another question to wonder about

Remember Bin Laden's taped confession? The FBI obviously doesn't think it is sufficient evidence. They probably question its authenticity like most of us do.

[varkam]

3. K&R

This one needs to be seen

[pitohui]

4. this has always been the case

even in the days immediately after 9/11 the fbi web site said bin laden was wanted in connection w/ kenya/tanzania embassy bombings and the attack on the u.s. cole

it said nothing of 9/11 even tho people complained that 9/11 wasn't mentioned in the $25 million award offer

i don't think it has ever been proved beyond a doubt that bin laden personally gave the order for 9/11, although he obviously created the concept of the simultaneous attack (as w. the embassies) so it couldn't be ignored

one plane goes down and flies into a building, like aa 567, even tho we all know it was terror, they write it off as an unexplained accident

2 embassies blow up, or 4 planes go down simultaneously, suddenly it can't be B.S.'d any more

bin laden is a bad man who invented a v. bad concept in terror, no doubt about it

whether he could be convicted of 9/11 crimes based on rules of evidence, i don't know, but we can get him on kenya/tanzania/cole so bring him to effin' trial already

[Art_from_Ark]

17. Bin Laden didn't create the concept of simultaneous attacks

The Tokyo subway attacks in 1995 were simultaneous attacks committed by Aum Shinrikyo, a group of home-grown Japanese terrorists.

Sikh terrorists were said to have planted bombs on two airplanes on June 23, 1985-- one blew up when the plane was in mid-air, the other one went off after the plane had stopped for refueling in Tokyo.

And the IRA had been conducting simultaneous attacks long before anyone heard of Al Qaeda

[physioex]

5. Interesting Read...Thanks EOM

[doc mercer]

7. Bin Laden

Why name Bin Laden when we all know Bush was the RingLeader on 9-11

[Skidmore]

8. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me much if he were an employee of

the Carlyle group.

[Disturbed]

9. The Bush Regime always needs a Villan.

It's the needed cause for the simple minded.

[mom cat]

22. The Bush Regiem IS the villan.The controlled demolition of three

steel core buildings (with explosives that were so strong that their was molten metal in the base for weeks later)could have not been accomplished by the crashing planes. It never was about Osama and never was.

[treestar]

11. Having enough evidence to indict him is a different thing than

having a "war" against him - war is this free for all with no legal rules, except those hammered out by international conventions and conveniently ignored by the United States.

The only person they could indict was Moussaoui, as far as having actual evidence. Maybe they would have had evidence against the hijackers in theory, though we don't really hear much about that.

There has been little attempt to investigate 911 as a criminal matter, being that * only wanted to use it as a reason to go to war with somebody somewhere.

It is also mostly academic. Think of the arrogance of a country saying it can prosecute someone who has never been in the US. He would have to be extradited and one wonders who would do it. If he is really is Pakistan and Pakistan is 99% Muslim, it would be hard for that country to do it.

Which could explain why he never gets caught. There would be a lot of awkwardness. Not to mention the things he might say if brought to trial. Like some of the comments in the thread - he starts talking about his relations with Americans in the 70s and 80s and * will have public relations problems. Even though the freeple would just say Osama is lying, the * administration would not want to deal with it all.

[rosesaylavee]

13. I saw this posted last week and it sunk like a rock for some reason

but this is what I just came across recently....

http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden1.html

Who was behind 9/11? – an interview with Osama Bin Laden
By The Daily Ummat of Karachi

Daily Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks on New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this?

Osama Bin Laden: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace for the whole of humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent the Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to Ummat Publications for giving me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon .

I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 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 human beings 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 battle. It is the United States which is perpetrating every sort of maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that has been going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to invoke the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries that witnessed all of this as silent spectators. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers, namely that America is an anti-Islamic power and is patronising anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just show, or rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Cast a glance around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

This response dates from fall of 2001 - interview in Sept but published that November. I never saw it until just last week. And his response as to what Islam allows and forbids as acts of war is accurate as per what a Muslim friend has told me again and again.

So, were we played or what? I used to think LIHOP and MIHOP were too out there to consider. I have certainly changed my way of looking at the govt these past several years. IMO, we need to know the truth of what happened on 9/11/01 and how involved *co was.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Why trust the FBI? They're only covering their asses.

Remember they were the ones that made the decision to allow the bin Laden family to take flight out of the U.S. without even holding one of them for interrogation. Also, it would be sooo convenient for the Bush Administration to suddenly lose all their boogey men and call the war on terror a victory.

[Virginia Dare]

15. So the whole bin laden 9/11 story...

was just a crazy C.T. made up by the Bush Administration? Wow, who'd a thunk it?

[pberq]

18. This is not news to those who have researched 9/11

Here are a couple of short excerpts from "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert

p.123:

Chapter 9
BUSINESS WITH THE BIN LADENS:
THE REAL SAUDI ARABIA

The most important thing for us is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our number one priority, and we will not rest until we find him.
— George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.
— George W, Bush, March 13, 2002

Osama bin Laden is probably the last witness the United States would like to have interrogated. There is a compelling case to be made that Osama bin Laden has long been a well-cultivated, protected, and valued asset of US and British intelligence. It is also possible that he has been used.

The bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia is vastly different from what has been described in the American press. Much of its wealth, power, sophistication, and political and economic influence has been overlooked. A close examination leads directly to US economic and intelligence interests. And this does much to explain why American corporate media has avoided discussing it in detail. . .

p.99:

Mid-July 2001: John O’Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O’Neill says, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia.” He also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open. (CNN, 1/8/02; CNN, 1/9/02; Irish Times, 11/19/01; the book Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth)

[Gregorian]

19. Is it even important?

To be honest, the role Bin Laden played was rather insignificant. Compared to Bush/Cheney/Kissinger/etc.


But there is a tape floating around with Bin Laden explaining why he chose the World Trade Center. That doesn't make someone indictable though.

[leftofthedial]

21. he's a scapegoat, a boogeyman

He has a marketing connection to 9-11.

The worst you can say about the "real" bin Laden is that he's a fundie and a rich Saudi.

He's a label, a brand-name. He's the "New and Improved" on the packaging for the "war on terror."

[Americus]

23. Curiously, the OCT Brigade is thus far silent on this issue

Since OBL is supposed to be the main perp behind 9/11, it's odd that none of the usual OCT Spin Doctors here have even tried to dispute or spin the fact that the FBI hasn't found any hard evidence to connect bin Laden to 9/11. (I guess the FBI already knows about OBL's long-time connection to the CIA)

[Old and In the Way]

28. They'd really rather debate the minutiae of 9/11.

They are agnostic about the big details except, of course, Bush was really incompetent.

[Americus]

30. OCT'ers say OBL did 9/11 - never mind that the FBI says "NOT So"

It must be awfully embarassing (to those OCT'ers capable of feeling) to shill for a conspiracy theory whose major leader the FBI says had nothing to do with 9/11. On the other hand, I keep forgetting that if you're being paid to promote something, you don't necessarily have to believe it. When there's money on the table, it's easy to rationalize. Just ask any media whore. (good luck finding one that'll actually admit that, but I know you get my drift)

You must have to wear a STEEL hat to still be a supporter/cheerleader for the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

[smoogatz]

31. Chum overboard!

I guess it's useless to point out that some alleged agent from the FBI saying there's "no hard evidence" isn't the same as the FBI saying bin laden had nothing to do with it. So I won't bother.

[smoogatz]

24. Aw, Jeez--

not this shit again! Hard evidence=actual physical evidence linking a suspect to a crime, testimony of co-conspirators, or eyewitness testimony. Such evidence apparently exists for the embassy bombings. If he's ever captured and convicted for those crimes alone, he'd never get out of prison alive. So it's kind of a moot point, no?

[pberq]

25. Maybe you missed the news back in 2001 that the U.S.

invaded Afganistan supposedly to go after bin Laden and Al-Quada. Well suppose bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, then why did the U.S. invaded Afganistan, and what is this 'war on terror' really about?

[smoogatz]

26. Suppose moose turds were chocolate pies.

For all the good it'll do ya. Do you deny that an al Qaeda precursor group attacked the WTC in 1993? Or that al Qaeda attacked the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000? Or that al Qaeda operatives were planning to hijack and detonate multiple airliners over the Pacific ocean in 2001, before the plot was disrupted? Do you deny that bin Laden specifically declared war on the US on multiple occasions, or that his known followers were in the US before 9/11, learning to fly commercial airliners on simulators (without bothering to learn how to take off or land)? Is it your contention that the government--going back to the beginning of the clinton administration--just made all that stuff up?

[Old and In the Way]

27. Who is this al-Qaeda that you speak of?

Given we've now spent a Trillion dollar and 2500 American lives fighting this "al-Qaeda", it is pretty amazing that we really don't have any information about who they are. Well, the fighting hasn't been all in vain....at least Dick Cheney is making big bucks on his Halliburton options and we've got a whole class of nouveaux riche Republicans.

What's really interesting is that Bush was apparently using the NSA to monitor all calls....yet we have nothing that can be pinned on Osama.

Only in America can we have a guy fingered for killing 3000 Americans while the President and his dad are business partners with his family.

So what do we know about 9/11?

* No evidence that Osama can be indicted for 9/11
* 1/2 of the 9/11 hijackers fingered within 24 hours of the attack are alive.
* This administration stonewalled the investigation for 18 months.....if anyone else was President, I think we could have expected the investigation to start within hours of the attack.
* The WTC evidence was impounded and sent away for smelting.
* The FBI and/or the Pentagon won't release the tapes showing 77 hitting the Pentagon.

[smoogatz]

29. Ask Richard Clarke.

Or read his book. He's pretty sure they did it.

On edit: Or is Clarke part of the conspiracy, too? I guess he'd have to be.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

33. It means "the base," and refers to a database of operatives' names,

if my sometimes faulty memory serves me correctly. And yes, I'm well aware that the CIA armed and trained the Mujahideen precursors of al Qaeda in order to cause trouble for the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80's (in fact the CIA built the mountain redoubt in Tora Bora from which bin Laden is alleged to have escaped into Pakistan), and also that bin Laden was in occasional contact with the CIA at that time--and that the Al Qaeda jihad against the US is a classic case of foreign policy blowback, and that perfectly rational people with no rightwing or PNAC agenda accept this as fact--including Richard Clarke, who strikes me as a reasonable and knowledgeable person whose word I'm inclined to accept over the ravings of some anonymous whackjob on the internet, thank you very much. So, is Clarke part of the conspiracy, or what?

[mirandapriestly]

63. In the bin laden Fatwa

you linked to in another post, why do you think that bin laden would say this:(emphasis mine)
"I say to Secretary of Defense: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious OVER YOUR PARTNER, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan."

It sounds to me that bin laden was pretending not to know that the U.S. had teamed up AGAINST the Russians. If he is deceptive about that, then what else is deceptive about the "Declaration of War"? Also, the fatwa is all about EXPELLING the U.S. from Saudi Arabia, that is the ONLY thing he requests in that long declaration. Why would he come to the US and attack us if he wanted to expel us? The natural response would be for us to strike back and send MORE troops over. It does not make sense.
He makes it clear that what he really wants to do is protect oil for the Saudis, but how did he know that the US would not strike back at Saudi Arabia?
Also, he got what he wanted, although not very many people know this; Bush gave into terrorist demands and took all the US troops OUT of Saudi Arabia in 2003. So why is there still a war on "terror"? or "al qaeda"? Their wishes are fulfilled as far as Saudi Arabia goes.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[mirandapriestly]

64. I don't know how the frowny face got in there.nt

[Americus]

65. Astute analysis, from a very keen mind. Very well put, MP. n/t

n/t

[mirandapriestly]

67. xoxo

at least one person reads my posts.;)thank you Americus

[Old and In the Way]

35. Who is this "they" that you speak of?

Again, we've spent trillions supposedly conducting a GWOT....yet we have no idea who this "they" is. With worse than negative results. Pretty hard to fight an enemy of which we are given no detailed information about.

As far as Clarke is concernd, I suspect that there is much that he knows that he chooses not to share, or cannot share, for national (Bush) security purposes.

Personally, I think this "war on terror" is a war on the truth against our economic and political system. I think I have a pretty good idea who al-Qaeda really is and I think you can ID the real leaders by the flag lapels they wear on their business suits.

[Americus]

36. "flag lapels they wear" Brilliant definition of who al-Qaeda really is.

n/t

Sorry there wasn't room enough left on the subject line for a "n/t" signal.

[smoogatz]

37. Well, if you read Clarke's book--and you should, if you're interested

in the history of al Qaeda and in the Bush administration's bizarre behavior leading up to 9/11--he makes it pretty clear that in his reasonably educated opinion, bin Laden's followers and affiliates were responsible for the attacks of 9/11. As you know, these are the remnants and disciples of what the Afghanis refer to as "the Arabs," non-Afghani mujahideen who fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s based on religious and Islamic-nationalist principles. It turns out they have a fairly lengthy list of grievances against us--mostly having to do with U.S. troops being based in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War 1, and our apparent disregard for the plight of the Palestinian people. Why, who do YOU think it was that done it, exactly?

[Old and In the Way]

39. I think al-qaeda and the BFEE are so entwined you can't really

tell them apart. The only 2 winners in this GWOT are, oddly enough, Al-Qaeda and Bush Republicanism. They are like a co-enabling, socially dysfunctional married couple. They love to hate each other...and everyone suffers along with them.

Tell me....do you think al-Qaeda is involved with this story? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=93668&mesg_id=93668

I have no idea how much Clarke really knows, but I'll bet thereally interesting stuff never made it into his book.

[smoogatz]

40. It's one thing to poke holes in the official narrative,

which is obviously rife with bullshit (WTC 7, Flight 93, etc). It's another thing entirely to construct a comprehensive, unified opposing theory that deals only in documented fact, with all of your sources clearly cited. Until that happens, I'll continue to believe that the most compelling narrative for 9/11 is a combination of LIHOP and Bushco incompetence (they let the planes get hijacked, but never imagined the hijackers would fly them into buildings). I believe Flight 93 was most likely shot down, but that's speculation on my part. I have no good explanation for WTC 7; neither does anyone else, that I'm aware of.

[Americus]

41. What facts can you offer in support of your assertions?

Specifically:

* Combination of LIHOP and "Bushco incompetence"

Please refrain from circular reasoning (as "they let the planes get hijacked, therefore they were incompetent"). We get enough of that from the OCT Spin Doctors.

[smoogatz]

42. They were warned about potential hijackings repeatedly

yet they did nothing--unlike Clinton, who believed that Islamist and domestic terrorism were the main threats to our national security. So, either they let the hijackings happen on purpose, or they were incompetent. The third possibility is that they let the hijackings happen (the PNAC's "triggering event") but thought the planes would be detonated a la the foiled "millenium plot." Instead the hijackers flew them into large buildings--hence the look of baffled horror on Bush's face as he sat in that Florida schoolroom. But tell me, Americus, what's YOUR theory? Holograms? Flight 77 Passengers and Crew Found by Cast of "Lost"?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

51. Oh for fucking Christ's sake.

You've got to be kidding me. Fine.

[dailykoff]

45. They "never imagined the hijackers would fly them into buildings"?

:rofl:

[smoogatz]

46. Well, that's what they said.

And, in fact, their lack of imagination is manifest in almost everything they do. So why should 9/11 be any different? And don't bother telling me about the AA gun placements on various government buildings, and the small plane that crashed into the WH during the Clinton admin., etc., etc. When Condi said they never imagined that anyone would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, she meant no one in the inner circle ever considered it as a serious possibility. And that seems about right to me.

[dailykoff]

47. They lied.

Big, big big time. Various agencies had been "imagining" air attacks on the Trade Center for at least eight years before 9/11. There are even reports with cover illustrations showing aerial views of the towers with big targets on them.

[smoogatz]

48. Maybe.

Maybe they were just stupid, rigid ideologues who only listened to the defense contractors who told them the big threat was from nuclear-armed missiles fired by rogue states, and who were so arrogant they believed that everything Clinton thought was important was crap, and they'd top him by doing the opposite. Think about who was in Bush's inner circle: Cheney, Condi (whose academic specialty was the Soviet Union, for God's sake), Rummy ('nuf said), Wolfowitz, Rove and Karen Hughes. Who among them are going to hatch this whole scheme in which fake terrorists from Saudi Arabia are going to hijack airliners, fly them into the WTC (which will then be detonated), pretend to fly one into the Pentagon but actually use a missile instead (while killing the passengers and crew, or giving them new identities--if they ever existed!), crashing Flight 93 on purpose--if it ever existed!--and leaving just enough debris around to implicate known Qaeda operatives who took flight simulator lessons before 9/11 without learning how to take off or land, but whose families claim they're still alive--(deep breath)--all so they could invade Iraq and rob Americans of their civil liberties. You think they're evil geniuses--I think they're policy incompetents and rank political opportunists. Considering what we know about their performance in other crises (I'm talking Katrina here, and the conduct of the war in Iraq), tell me which seems most likely?

On edit: could you source that stuff about the WTC being considered a target for ariel attack? Obviously, everyone knew it was a target after the 1993 attack, but not necessarily by hijacked airliners.

[dailykoff]

49. I'd like to think it was stupidity,

and for a while I did, but there's too much evidence to the contrary. So to answer your questions: no, I don't think they're evil geniuses, just evil, and yes, they are incompetent. Why do you think so many people have figured the thing out?

[smoogatz]

50. Figured what out?

If you have a comprehensive, unified theory that explains what happened on 9/11, who did it and how, I'd sure like to hear it. Reviewable facts only, please. No speculation.

[dailykoff]

52. Short version:

1. Four flights (maybe fewer) flown to Ohio.
2. Passengers (most thinking they're playing a war game) loaded onto 93.
3. 93 blown up over Shanksville.
4. Missiles fired into Trade Center (white elephant) and Pentagon (accounting scandal).
5. Thus begins the "war on terror."

[smoogatz]

53. Ah, well. That pretty much covers it.

You're kidding, right? Want to tell me which part of this is documented, reviewable fact and which part you totally yanked out of your ass?

On edit: I'll make it easy for you.

Fact: 0%
Out of your ass: 100%

I especially like the part when you pretend to know what all the passengers were thinking.

[dailykoff]

54. The only part I can say

with absolute, 100% certainty is that the Trade Center was demolished. The rest is speculation based on what I've learned since 9/11, which is obviously very little, but still a hell of a lot more than what's been officially reported.

[smoogatz]

55. Hit by missiles, is what you said.

Never mind video from multiple sources showing the second tower being hit by an airliner. Right?

[dailykoff]

56. I told you what I know.

The rest, as I said, is speculation, but no, I don't think any passenger-filled planes hit the towers. I don't know exactly what did.

[smoogatz]

57. Why do you not believe that airliners hit the towers?

You've seen the video, right? I mean, there it is.

[smoogatz]

58. Here's the CNN 9/11 video archive.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html

Sure looks like an airliner to me.

[dailykoff]

59. start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94527&mesg_id=94622

Gotta run so I'll say more later :)

[smoogatz]

60. Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

Did you actually watch the videos? Lordy. Never let the actual, recorded visual evidence get in the way of a perfectly loony theory. Obviously I'm wasting my time--but I knew that.

[Americus]

61. Why do you believe G. Bush's CT? Didn't you say he's an idiot?

Why is it that you believe (assuming you do, and aren't just another thinly-veiled shill here) what George Bush says about 9/11, but call the well-reasoned theories of highly credentialed scholars "perfectly loony"?

[smoogatz]

62. Does George Bush say he failed utterly in his sworn duty to protect

the nation and its citizens? Because that's what I believe. And yes, I think it's perfectly loony to watch three different videos from three different angles (two with sound) that clearly show an airliner hitting a building and then contend that it didn't happen. Still waiting for your unified, comprehensive, entirely factual 9/11 theory, by the way. And stop implying that I'm some kind of "shill." It's offensive, coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP.

[dailykoff]

66. The one plane clip at that link is utterly unconvincing.

There's a tiny blurry blob shooting into the tower followed by a fireball, period. An actual jumbo passenger jet colliding with one of those towers would have produced much more debris outside the buildings.

And what's up with "COURTESY PAX TV" title? As far as I know CNN was the source of most if not all the live feeds from NYC on 9/11. They're also crawling with CIA "interns" but that's another story. Most of the other clips on that page are "witness" testimonials and "special reports." Sorry, not buying a word of it.

p.s. the other plane videos I've seen are equally unconvincing, for one reason or another, as are the stills.

edit to incude the link:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html

[orleans]

68. also...regarding richard clarke

you said: "As far as Clarke is concerned, I suspect that there is much that he knows that he chooses not to share, or cannot share, for national (Bush) security purposes."

and i'm thinking about how they really cut him out of the loop. remember, he couldn't get meetings with principles? bushie demoted him down the pole--obl was the main concern w/clarke, but if bushco was setting osama up to take the fall while bushco knew about and/or organized the 9/11 attacks, clarke wouldn't have known about it.

[happydreams]

34. Who is Osama Bin Laden?

and what does he have to do with "My Wife and Kids" or "Seinfeld"?

[savemefromdumbya]

38. Does he really exist?