America's Destruction a Long Term Agenda

How stupid do you have to be to think that Osama bin Laden is too principled to lie. I never would have imagined that someone who distrusts 99.999% of all media could put trust in him. I guess it just shows the contortions you have to go through to keep juggling your conspiracy theories.

 

Yes, but why would Osama Bin Laden say he wasn't involved in these attacks, if he wants to put an end to the infidel america, wouldn't he be praising himself on that fact?

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

That's his calculation. Its not like the guy is ever clear on anything.

Yeah their anchorman of 24 years is a "scapegoat". Lame, rat, very lame. And he didn't even lie, he just got it wrong.

 

That's funny.

Dan Rather wasn't fired. The people working for him were.

 

Trying to understand why he does the things he does is not easy. Do you really think that the truth weighs heavily in the claims that he made? I don't know why he denied responsibility, but I'm sure he had his reasons...if I was Osama bin Laden, I'd try to take credit for them whether I was responsible or not. Needless to say, his initial denial of responsibility (even though he basically admitted to it in a later video) is hardly sufficient evidence of his innocence.

 

**

“the world bankers (and all of the global-elite for that matter) are essentially communists”

So what i want to know is if the Laden’s as wealthy members of the global-elite are communists does that mean that Osama is a communist?

 

Ok Kandahar, than list some evidence that shows without a doubt that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

No kidding. The point is, dropping your anchorman of 24 years is not "scapegoating" or trying to make it "appear" that they are taking action, its obvious you are just in automatic denial mode.

Without a doubt? That's impossible. For people desperate to cling to the idea that Bin Laden didn't do it, and eager to believe in Mossad/Illuminati piloted remote controlled missile firing drones, there is nothing that can change their minds. I can't even think of any evidence that COULD exist, let alone does exist, which would convince the faithful around here. We already have a voluntary confession, and that was flippantly and instantaneously rejected.

Now with regards to the great trust in Osama that we have seen around here, lets look at his September 17 denial. He was careful to point out that he was stricly observing the "house rules" of his host, Mullah Omar, which of course wouldn't include using the country as a base for terrorism. At the time Omar and the Taliban were under severe pressure from the US and clearly were under military threat. Omar had stalled saying "Who's Osama? Don't know him. Oh that Osama. OK, we know him but he's not in Afghanistan. OK he is in afghanistan, but we haven't seen him. OK here's here and we know where he is, but we need more evidence.". However, AFTER the US invaded and drove the Taliban out of power, there was a lot less incentive to lie about it, since Osama could save neither his own nor Omar's hide through denials. Then videotapes were captured, as opposed to public statements made, implicating Osama. Later he finally comes out and admits it.

Well that's not so strange. But there will always be people like Rat and Hipster who deep in their hearts know that Bin Laden wouldn't lie! No, we can put our trust in him, because at least he isn't an Illuminati communist like George Bush.

 

That's Funny, because I can't think of any evidence that even non-skeptics would believe.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I know you were eager for a retort, but pretending that non-skeptics wouldn't believe a videotaped confession is just plain stupid.

 

1. Airport security cameras show 19 Arab men boarding four airplanes on the morning of September 11. Coincidentally, those 19 Arab men were members of al-Qaeda. Also coincidentally, those planes were the four that crashed.

2. Osama Bin Laden declared jihad on the United States in 1997, and cited the 1993 World Trade Center terrorists as "role models."

3. The summer before the attacks, al-Qaeda members throughout the world were warned to return to Afghanistan by September.

4. The way in which the attacks were carried out is standard for al-Qaeda: suicide attacks, multiple targets simultaneously, and a return to previously-attacked targets.

5. The al-Qaeda members implicated in this attack had attended flight schools in the United States, but did not seem interested in learning how to land a plane.

6. Osama Bin Laden CONFESSED TO THE ATTACKS ON VIDEOTAPE.


Now you can dismiss all of this evidence as faked, instead of applying the same skepticism to your OWN theory which doesn't hold up nearly as well under scrutiny. However, you know perfectly well that if you do, there is no possible evidence that could convince you of the truth.

It is simply impossible for anyone - especially an organization as bureaucratic and unorganized as the US government - to fake six pieces of damning evidence without a major slipup.

 

That doesn't mean that those 19 men belonged to Osama Bin Laden's Organization. Mossad Operatives have been caught many many times posing as al-queda and have been caught setting up fake al-queda cells http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fakealqaeda. Also, Many believe that these 19 men were nothing more than CIA agents told to go on these planes for no reason in particular, and were patsies. Although there isn't direct evidence of this, there is just as much of a chance of this than what you stated above. Also, I have never seen the video of all 19 arabs boarding, I have only seen the video of one, would you like to show me a link of these videos? Because these men's names are not on the passenger lists of these planes

Osama Bin Laden is nothing more than a CIA asset, a front, the 1993 WTC bombings were the work of the FBI, you may not believe this, but it's true according to the NY times: http://prisonplanet.com/the_world_trade_towers_bombing.html

How is this relevant? Just because they warned them to return doesn't mean they were involved, in fact the taliban had warned the US about an impending terror attack on lower manhatten, but of course George W. Bush and the rest of his cabinet didn't need to be warned. Everybody knew this was going to happen, and if al-queda was involved or not, they most likely knew they were going to be the patsy.

Yes, maybe, but do you really think some terrorist organization out of afghanistan could have really single handedly hijacked 4 airplanes simutaneously and then crashed them into their targets without any hassle from Norad or the FTAA? Im sorry, you have a right to your opinion, but this just doesn't seem plausible to me. if i was going to murder somebody and frame a serial killer, I would most likely kill that person in the same way that that serial murderer would have.

You bring up a good point, not only did they not seem interested in landing a plane, they were all terrible pilots, and from the testimony of the flight instructors, there is no way on earth they could have flew a commercial jet airplane, especially making the insane manuevers made on that day.

Well I find this very strange that theres an interview in which he denies the attacks, than a few weeks later, theres a video in which he takes credit for the attacks, and looks completely different...

Osama A B C and D are all from previous videos, and E is from the one which he takes credit for the attacks. Here is a very interesting link which talks about this video more in detail, but from my reserach, it seems doctored to me. Also, From the link i posted above, thiis is what is said: "
A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative". Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose?" I know you and pointbreak will come back and me and say "see, hes a sheep, he doesn't listen to anyone except conpsiracy theorists", but i have respected your opinions and came back with my side of the argument and was completely respectful, so i hope you reply the same way to me and actually respect my opinons as well.
Peace and Love,
Dan

 

No -- there was four pieces of surveillance footage showing Mohammed Atta and three of the other "19 hijackers" at the airport security check just prior to them boarding one of the planes. We did not see footage showing all 19 men boarding all four planes.



Mohammed Atta (notice the discrepancy in time):


This might explain why mainstream news reports have turned up since 9/11, stating as many as 8 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive and living in the Middle East....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

And nobody is denying that hijackers boarded the planes, because I am sure some of them did (others backed out at the last minute). But I believe they were Arab CIA operatives who were duped into thinking they would be participating in a drill. This might explain why several of the hijackers were using credit cards with government accounts.

While I believe there were al-CIAda operatives on board the planes, it is believed the planes were flown into the buildings via remote control. This is what I believe.

You have to be pretty naive if you believe that pilots who were described as "terrible pilots" by their instructors and only had limited experience flying small planes, had the ability to fly literally HUNDREDS of miles by eyesight alone, then proceed to crash into high-rise buildings with sheer precision.

Since 9/11, many commercial airplane pilots have stated that there is no way these people would have been able to pull of what they did, which would likely take years of training. Many of these pilots, who have years of experience, have even stated there is no way that even they would have been able to pull this off.

Right. According to the US government.

And like Dan already stated, the terrorists in the 1993 attack on the WTC, as with 9/11, was the US government. The proof is overwhelming, since we have one of the terrorist patsies stating ON RECORD that he was coerced into conducting a drill using what he was told were "fake explosives."

This appeared in several newspapers, including the New York Times, then was quietly brushed under the rug and we haven't heard about it since.

This sounds so ridiculous, it's almost laugh-worthy.

The summer before the attacks, a CIA agent also met with bin Laden when he was undergoing treatment in a US Army hospital in Dubai....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

Well, if the government was going to pull off an attack on its own people, don't you think they'd exercise some intelligence and try to make it look like an attack by al-Qaeda?

9/11 was a psychological operation perpetrated on the American people by its own government. The intention of these attacks was to elicit enough of a emotional response in the people to justify the military action and civil liberty destruction that would follow.

The 9/11 attacks represented an attack on both America's economic and military infrastructure. It was intended to bare symbolism and affect the minds of Americans on a subconscious level, to make them feel as though they were under attack on all ends.

And again, they were reported to be terrible pilots. They also had no training using a commercial airliner, which is much different than the planes they were allegedly trained in.

Right -- the US forged a video using a voice print in which bin Laden appeared admitting to the attacks, after he first admitted not doing it weeks before. Dan pretty much covered the bulk of this above.

It just doesn't add up.

Yet, it's possible for al-Qadea to pull of the attacks, with access to much fewer resources?

Is it also impossible that NORAD stood down that morning?

http://www.standdown.net/
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

Is it impossible that San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and writer Salmon Rushdie were warned not to fly on 9/11, when we have mainstream news reports stating this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL
http://www.coastalpost.com/03/09/08.htm

Is it impossible that a series of war game exercises were occuring on the morning of 9/11, which simulated planes crashing into buildings?

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=14947&repository=0001_article

 

**

So lets get this straight is al queada, part of the Jewish/Rothschild/Rockefeller conspiracy or not and are they or are they not all communists.

 

al quaeda doesn't really exist, they are a fictional organisation created by the illuminati/mossad/CIA as a boogeyman. all actions carried out by al queda are actions by cia/mossad/illuminati undercover agents posing as al queda. therefore they are communists in the sense that the CIA are communists.

And at the same time the banks are communist and they only way to stop the communist banks taking over the world is to nationalise them. In fact the only way to stop communism is probably to nationalise all the big corporations. then once the state controls the economy we will be safe from communism.

 

the state (U.S.) already does control everything. The corporations control the Washington through the use of lobbyists and corporate lawyers. Communism was never really about the people- atleast not any communist government I know about.

 

So all banks are secretly communists, all corporations are secretly communists, all the rich people in the world are closet communists, all the security organisations are communist, all the terrorists are communists and all the communists are communists.

And they are all working together to bring about global fascism.

?

No, now I’m confused again.

 

No one said they were communist, they're saying that they just invented and spread communism because it brings them more power. Of course, you probably know exactly what they're saying, but you're arguments can't stand on their own, or at least you are too lazy to make them stand on their own, so you just resort to your usual intellectually dishonest 'debate' tactics. Why bother to attack the message when you can just attack the messenger and rely on the fact that your side of the debate is hipper 'round these parts?

 

Well I agree with Rat. If anyone would actually bother to read up on these theories, they're very plausible.

 

Actually there is something ridiculous in the logic of saying we should nationalise the banks in order to save ourselves from the communists.

Just as it is ridiculous to say the banks control the world. How? What banks? The banks are controlled by shareholders. And Rothschilds, the classic illuminati bank, is not an especially powerful or influential bank. The Japanese banks are the world's biggest - are the Illuminati Japanese these days? Does the rise of disintermediation, in the form of asset securitisation and bond financing, mean the illuminati are becoming less powerful, since this reduces the banks' role in financial markets? Or is wrong to discuss these things because "the banks control the world" is something that just is and cannot be explained?