Harley Man

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Why deny responsibility for the second, more spectacular attack then?

He later did claim responsibility for it.

Though, just checked and can't find anything about Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility for the 93 bombings. I was wrong on that.

RGDATA!

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that the WTC was attacked before, and Bin Laden had claimed responsibility right?

no, I didn't realise that - link to put me out of my ignorance?

edit:
sorry you've already addressed this

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

He later did claim responsibility for it.

Though, just checked and can't find anything about Bin Laden directly claiming responsibility for the 93 bombings. I was wrong on that.

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801


(it's the same vid possibly)

King Mob

RGDATA! wrote: »

no, I didn't realise that - link to put me out of my ignorance?

edit:
sorry you've already addressed this

Though that said the links the 93 bombing had with Al Qaeda were pretty solid.

Hookah wrote: »

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801

(it's the same vid possibly)

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Though that said the links the 93 bombing had with Al Qaeda were pretty solid.

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Clear and detailed? Nah. Not even close. Did you even check the links youeself? One of the them is dead, like OBL.

Praise for the attacks but no confession here.

– Osama bin Laden, 2004[87]

Or here

in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[89][90][91]

Brown Bomber

Hookah wrote: »

Which claim?

This one...http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

Or the one with the dodgy translation?...http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801


(it's the same vid possibly)

I wonder if that actor is the same "darker-skinned" CIA agent that the CIA used in making a confirmed fake bin Laden tape?

The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us
darker-skinned employees,” he said.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Clear and detailed? Nah. Not even close. Did you even check the links youeself? One of the them is dead, like OBL.

Praise for the attacks but no confession here.


Or here

Not super bothered to track down links that specifically show this only to have them ignored or dismissed as part of the conspiracy without evidence so just slapped up the wikipedia article.

My main point if you want to address it is that the WTC was attacked by Al Qaeda before, so guessing that Osama Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks wasn't a massive leap.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, other more clear ones as detailed and referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11_attacks

Ah yes, the other disputed video that appeared 4 days before the presidential election, giving Bush a boost in the polls.

So, he initially denies it, then a very dodgy video appears in which he claims responsibility, which boosts the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, then he doesn't say a word about it until he conveniently pops up to give George Bush a helping hand.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Ah yes, the other disputed video that appeared 4 days before the presidential election, giving Bush a boost in the polls.

So, he initially denies it, then a very dodgy video appears in which he claims responsibility, which boosts the reasons for attacking Afghanistan, then he doesn't say a word about it until he conveniently pops up to give George Bush a helping hand.

So you're saying that all the videos released of him are fake?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So you're saying that all the videos released of him are fake?

I'm saying the two videos of Osama claiming responsibility for 9/11, are ,in my opinion, fake.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I'm saying the two videos of Osama claiming responsibility for 9/11, are ,in my opinion, fake.

And to be super-extra clear you believe that these were also faked by the same crowd who organised 9/11 as a false flag?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

And to be super-extra clear you believe that these were also faked by the same crowd who organised 9/11 as a false flag?

Not necessarily, no. But I wouldn't discount the possibility.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Not necessarily, no. But I wouldn't discount the possibility.

So then if these videos were part of such a conspiracy, why was there video showing Osama Bin Laden denying the attacks allowed to be shown?

And if you don't necessarily believe there was a vast conspiracy to fake the attacks, then do you agree that the 93 attack was an Al Qaeda plot?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So then if these videos were part of such a conspiracy, why was there video showing Osama Bin Laden denying the attacks allowed to be shown?

It was issued to, and released, by Al Jazeera.

And if you don't necessarily believe there was a vast conspiracy to fake the attacks, then do you agree that the 93 attack was an Al Qaeda plot?

I agree, even if I'm not entirely clear on the relevance.

Edit. I've just re-read your sentence. To make it clear, I do believe there was a conspiracy to fake the attacks.

I don't believe that those who allegedly faked the attacks are necessarily the same people behind what I believe to be the fake videos.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

It was issued to, and released, by Al Jazeera.

So then why has Bin Laden, or another high ranked person in the organisation not released videos stating that the ones claiming responsibility of 9/11 are faked?

Hookah wrote: »

I agree, even if I'm not entirely clear on the relevance.

Because it's my point. Since Al-Qaeda have attacked the WTC it wasn't a stretch or leap of logic to guess that it was them again.

Hookah wrote: »

Edit. I've just re-read your sentence. To make it clear, I do believe there was a conspiracy to fake the attacks.

I don't believe that those who allegedly faked the attacks are necessarily the same people behind what I believe to be the fake videos.

So who else would fake the videos and for what purpose?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So then why has Bin Laden,

Because he died at Tora Bora?

or another high ranked person in the organisation not released videos stating that the ones claiming responsibility of 9/11 are faked?

I tried googling to see if this has happened, but given the parameters, searching for "al qaeda, leader, fake, 9/11, video, claim", it might take some time to find a result, so I can't discount the possibility that this has happened and it's not broadcast as readily as these tapes.

Because it's my point. Since Al-Qaeda have attacked the WTC it wasn't a stretch or leap of logic to guess that it was them again.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility. The theory that Al Qaeda were solely responsible for the attacks is one I just don't buy, however.

So who else would fake the videos and for what purpose?

The US military industrial complex. The first to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The second to boost the popularity of George Bush, pre-election, in order to continue their diabolical plans. ?

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Because he died at Tora Bora?

I tried googling to see if this has happened, but given the parameters, searching for "al qaeda, leader, fake, 9/11, video, claim", it might take some time to find a result, so I can't discount the possibility that this has happened and it's not broadcast as readily as these tapes.

So if they could suppress these videos, how did the first one, denying responsibility get out?

Hookah wrote: »

The US military industrial complex. The first to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The second to boost the popularity of George Bush, pre-election, in order to continue their diabolical plans. ?

Well who were they trying to justify it to?
Congress? Would they really just go to war based on a videotape?
The public? Who either on one side didn't need to see the videotape to agree with the war or the ones who never agreed with the war?
And if they did do to boost GW's popularity (already high before, during and after the election), how come Kerry's guys didn't call them out on it?
How come they didn't pull the same shtick with McCain?

You see these conspiracy theories only look like they make sense on the surface, scratch at any part of them and they start to crumble.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So if they could suppress these videos, how did the first one, denying responsibility get out?

I didn't say they were suppressed.

When I try to search for it, I get so many results concerning fake al Qaeda tapes, I can't find if such a denial has been issued.

Well who were they trying to justify it to?
Congress? Would they really just go to war based on a videotape?

They were already at war, IIRC.

The public? Who either on one side didn't need to see the videotape to agree with the war or the ones who never agreed with the war?

To keep those onside onside? To sway those who wavered?

I could a question to you in the vein of your first Twin Towers attack/Al Qaeda question.

If the US have engaged in psyops at other times, couldn't they be capable of engaging in psyops with regard to Osama's confession.

Not that that rhetorical question proves anything.

And if they did do to boost GW's popularity (already high before, during and after the election), how come Kerry's guys didn't call them out on it?

How come they didn't pull the same shtick with McCain?

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the military industrial complex?

Wasn't there a Democratic landslide for economic reasons? Not even Osama could upset that party.

Not that Obama's done much to stop the wars.

You see these conspiracy theories only look like they make sense on the surface, scratch at any part of them and they start to crumble.

Really? If you say so.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I didn't say they were suppressed.

When I try to search for it, I get so many results concerning fake, al Qaeda tapes, I can't find if such a denial has been issued.

But the first one is readily available, you'd think that if such a tape existed then a lot of people would be pointing at it.

So there's really only two viable explanations:
One: such a tape does not exist. Or two: the tape is being suppressed.
If one is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as Al-Qaeda would love to call the US out as liars.
If two is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as a video tape going against their narrative has already been released and continues to be available.

Hookah wrote: »

They were already at war, IIRC.
To keep those onside onside? To sway those who wavered?

So it wasn't to convince congress then.
So why did they need to justify it to the public? The majority of the public in the US and the world being against the war had little or no baring to the war.

Hookah wrote: »

I could a question to you in the vein of your first Twin Towers/Al Qaeda question.

If the US have engaged in psyops at other times, couldn't they be capable of engaging in psyops with regard to Osama's confession.

Not that that rhetorical question proves anything.

Except I was making the point that Al Qaeda had attacked the WTC before, therefore it wasn't a crazy suggestion at the time as BB was trying to make it seem.

Hookah wrote: »

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the military industrial complex?

Yet you seem to be able to do just that when you want to speculate on their motivations.

Hookah wrote: »

Really?

Yup, pretty much.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But the first one is readily available, you'd think that if such a tape existed then a lot of people would be pointing at it.

So there's really only two viable explanations:
One: such a tape does not exist. Or two: the tape is being suppressed.
If one is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as Al-Qaeda would love to call the US out as liars.
If two is true, the conspiracy theory wouldn't make sense, as a video tape going against their narrative has already been released and continues to be available.

Or 3. Maybe they're just happy to bask in the glory of taking responsibility for the attacks.

So it wasn't to convince congress then.
So why did they need to justify it to the public? The majority of the public in the US and the world being against the war had little or no baring to the war.

None of which gets away from the indications that the video itself is false.

Yet you seem to be able to do just that when you want to speculate on their motivations.

The motive seems obvious in this case.

Nor does this get away from the false indications.

Yup, pretty much.

Not to me.

There are facts which are at odds with non-conspiracy theory.

The actions of the Secret Service at Booker Elementary school, where Bush was reading to the schoolchildren on the morning of the attacks.

Or the presence of Mossad operatives in New York, on the day of the attacks.

Or the collapse of WTC7....

...to give just a few examples.

If you can properly explain these in terms of the non-conspiracy theory, you might go someway to convincing me of the crumbliness of the conspiracy theory.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Or 3. Maybe they're just happy to bask in the glory of taking responsibility for the attacks.

But then the video you're taking as real does the opposite, showing that explanation also doesn't make sense.

Hookah wrote: »

None of which gets away from the indications that the video itself is false.

But you've not been arguing these indications.

Hookah wrote: »

The motive seems obvious in this case.

But the motive isn't obvious due to the questions I raised and you said you can't answer because the answers are not at all obvious.

Hookah wrote: »

Not to me.

There are facts which are at odds with non-conspiracy theory.

The actions of the Secret Service at Booker Elementary school, where Bush was reading to the schoolchildren on the morning of the attacks.

Or the presence of Mossad operatives in New York, on the day of the attacks.

Or the collapse of WTC7....

...to give just a few examples.

If you can properly explain these in terms of the non-conspiracy theory, you might go someway to convincing me of the crumbliness of the conspiracy theory.

Yup most of those have been tackled here before, most usually relying on bad logic and plain misinformation.
But rather than take this thread off topic maybe you'd like to try this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69448335

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But then the video you're taking as real does the opposite, showing that explanation also doesn't make sense.

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the Al Qaeda leadership?

But you've not been arguing these indications.

I put two links early on, with regard to the 2001 video.

If you have any questions specific to the claims in those links, feel free to ask.

But the motive isn't obvious due to the questions I raised and you said you can't answer because the answers are not at all obvious.

Here's one motive for the 2001 video, loss of support for the war in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/30/uk.september11

Yup most of those have been tackled here before, most usually relying on bad logic and plain misinformation.
But rather than take this thread off topic maybe you'd like to try this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69448335

The only issue of the three I see tackled there is the Mossad presence, with your own speculations as to their presence.

Of the Mossad agents there that day, the dancing one's claimed on Israeli television they were there to film the event, which indicates fore-knowledge at least.

There is no mention, I see, of WTC7 and Booker Elementary.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

How am I to decipher the byzantine reasonings of the Al Qaeda leadership?

So again your logic is: since you can't speculate on the motivations and reasons, your speculations on their motivations and reasons are valid regardless of inconsistencies?

Hookah wrote: »

I put two links early on, with regard to the 2001 video.

If you have any questions specific to the claims in those links, feel free to ask.

That's great and all but I though we were talking about the 2004 videos...

Hookah wrote: »

Here's one motive for the 2001 video, loss of support for the war in the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/30/uk.september11

Again not talking about the 2004 ones in the US as per you original assertion.

Hookah wrote: »

The only issue of the three I see tackled there is the Mossad presence, with your own speculations as to their presence.

Of the Mossad agents there that day, the dancing one's claimed on Israeli television they were there to film the event, which indicates fore-knowledge at least.

There is no mention, I see, of WTC7 and Booker Elementary.

I posted that link to suggest you post there in the rules laid out rather than take this thread off topic. If you'd like to bring up those points there, I'd be glad to tackle any of them and show how they crumble under basic scrutiny.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

So again your logic is: since you can't speculate on the motivations and reasons, your speculations on their motivations and reasons are valid regardless of inconsistencies?

My speculations are neither valid nor invalid, since I declined to speculate.

That's great and all but I though we were talking about the 2004 videos...

I thought we were talking about the two videos related to Osama's confessions.

Again not talking about the 2004 ones in the US as per you original assertion.

As above.

I posted that link to suggest you post there in the rules laid out rather than take this thread off topic.

Sure. Go back on topic, if you wish.

If you'd like to bring up those points there, I'd be glad to tackle any of them and show how they crumble under basic scrutiny.

I'm happy here.

If there are plausible explanations for the above three topics, I'd love to hear them sometime, especially the actions of the Secret Service at the school.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

My speculations are neither valid nor invalid, since I declined to speculate.

But you are, you're positing an explanation based on the unsupported premise that there is a massive conspiracy. The definition of speculation.

Hookah wrote: »

I thought we were talking about the two videos related to Osama's confessions.

As above.

Hookah wrote: »

Ah yes, the other disputed video that appeared 4 days before the presidential election, giving Bush a boost in the polls.

Here you are refering to the 2004 one, and since you were referring to Bush's re-election, that's what I thought we were discussing.
So do you have have anything to suggest that the 2004 video is a fake or are you just using the sources you posted discussing the 2001 to cover both?

Hookah wrote: »

Sure. Go back on topic, if you wish.

I'm happy here.

If there are plausible explanations for the above three topics, I'd love to hear them sometime, especially the actions of the Secret Service at the school.

And I'd be happy to explain them, if you give a clear, concise post about what you think happened. The best place for that would be the thread I posted rather than taking this one off topic.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But you are, you're positing an explanation based on the unsupported premise that there is a massive conspiracy. The definition of speculation.

What was the specific question again?

So do you have have anything to suggest that the 2004 video is a fake or are you just using the laughable sources you posted discussing the 2001 to cover both?

So, no questions with regard to the specific claims in the 2001 links?

And I'd be happy to explain them, if you give a clear, concise post about what you think happened. The best place for that would be the thread I posted rather than taking this one off topic.

I'll get straight on it after the weekend.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

What was the specific question again?

There's many that you fobbed off and show the theory is inconsistent.
Like why Al-Qaeda haven't cried foul on the fake videos?
Like why information going against the narrative was allowed out?
Or why they didn't use similar videos to their advantage in other situations, identical to the ones you think they already used them for.
Or why their political rivals didn't also call them out.
Or even what was the point of the videos when they didn't actually achieve what you claim they were meant to achieve (and actually, by "being so obviously fake", go against their goal.)

And I thing you realise that there's already a very good answer to these questions.

Hookah wrote: »

So, no questions with regard to the specific claims in the 2001 links?

Yea, you really using Alex Jones as a source?
And no links showing the 2004 video being fake then?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

There's many that you fobbed off and show the theory is inconsistent.
Like why Al-Qaeda haven't cried foul on the fake videos?
Like why information going against the narrative was allowed out?
Or why they didn't use similar videos to their advantage in other situations, identical to the ones you think they already used them for.
Or why their political rivals didn't also call them out.
Or even what was the point of the videos when they didn't actually achieve what you claim they were meant to achieve (and actually, by "being so obviously fake", go against their goal.)

None of which gets away from the indications that the video themselves are false.

And I thing you realise that there's already a very good answer to these questions.

It was more the obvious fakeness of the videos that drew my attention.

Yea, you really using Alex Jones as a source?

Which conspiracy sites are reliable and I'll post a similar link form there.

And no links showing the 2004 video being fake then?

Yes, there are. Plenty.

I'll await your answer on reliable conspiracy theory sites and post a link from that one.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

None of which gets away from the indications that the video themselves are false.

But they are issues that work against the conspiracy, even before we address the issues with the video itself. So on the off chance that you can actually show the video is absolutely fake, your explanation doesn't make a lick of sense.

Hookah wrote: »

It was more the obvious fakeness of the videos that drew my attention.

So it's only the ones where he claims responsibility that are fake?
The first one where he denies it is a real one?

Hookah wrote: »

Which conspiracy sites are reliable and I'll post a similar link form there.

Yes, there are. Plenty.

I'll await your answer on reliable conspiracy theory sites and post a link from that one.

Well any one that uses expert opinion, verifiable facts and doesn't rely on assumptions. So basically the opposite of the Alex Jones one you posted.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But they are issues that work against the conspiracy, even before we address the issues with the video itself. So on the off chance that you can actually show the video is absolutely fake, your explanation doesn't make a lick of sense.

The 2001 video also drew attention from the Israeli spy scandal. Another motive.

So it's only the ones where he claims responsibility that are fake?
The first one where he denies it is a real one?

That is the theory I have posited.

Well any one that uses expert opinion, verifiable facts and doesn't rely on assumptions. So basically the opposite of the Alex Jones one you posted.

So, which is a reputable conspiracy theory site then? I'll be happy to post links from there.

What about the German documentary makers who said the 2001 translation was unreliable and manipulative? Was that not a reputable source?