Harley Man

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

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

Again, doesn't make any sense.
If this is the case, why not use a video to clear up other, actual scandals.
Like the lack of WMDs or the lack of a connection between Sadam and Al-Qaeda?
Let me guess "you can't speculate about the inner working of the conspiracy"?

Hookah wrote: »

That is the theory I have posited.

So how do you know the first one is real?

Hookah wrote: »

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

Any that relies on facts and evidence.
Alex Jones' site does not.

Honestly I'd prefer you'd actually present the argument and evidence yourself rather than you copy pasting from a site.

Hookah wrote: »

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

Well looks to me like the German specialist can be as guilty of the stuff he's accusing the Americans of. There are many other translators that don't have any issue with the translation done by the Americans.
What makes this German guy any more trustworthy?
Also the article makes a lot of editorialising which kinda destroys it's credibility.
And to be clear, do you believe that the video in question is actually of Bin Laden, just the translation is wrong?

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

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.

The only thing crumbling around here is the official story, which is complete bunk of the highest possible order. Its been torn to shreds on every conceivable level.

BBC were caught annoucing the collapse of building 7 before it was blown up in a controlled demolition, just like the other 2 towers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

I also seriously doubt Osama had the capability to fire a missile into the side of the pentagon.

King Mob

GarlicBread wrote: »

BBC were caught annoucing the collapse of building 7 before it was blown up in a controlled demolition, just like the other 2 towers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Just think about that for a second.
It's the single greatest crime ever. Involving nearly every western government, law enforcement agency, scientific establishment and media outlet. It took years of planing every detail to fake the planes, rig the explosives and set up the story to tell the public. They develop fantastical new technologies to achieve holographic planes and stealth demolitions by nano-thermite. They make sure that every single last one of the people involved on every level never say anything at all ever about their involvement, and all of those people stay quiet for over a decade.
But in all that, some piss ant news reporter lets it slip a little too early?

Yup, great theory there.

Jesus Wept

Straw man.

King Mob

The-Rigger wrote: »

Straw man.

Which part? I point to posts claiming every single piece of that.

Jesus Wept

Were they all from GarlicBread?

King Mob

The-Rigger wrote: »

Were they all from GarlicBread?

One is self evident. (none of the hundreds of thousands of conspirators coming forward.)
Some need to be held to hold a belief in the conspiracy theory. (all government agencies, scientific institutes and media outlets being in on it. New technologies, like stealth demolitions)
And one isdirectly stated by him (the fact the reporter letting it slip blows open the conspiracy.)

So that leaves: holographic planes.
I am not sure if Garlic Bread believes that this is part of the conspiracy.

GarlicBread

King Mob wrote: »

One is self evident. (none of the hundreds of thousands of conspirators coming forward.)
Some need to be held to hold a belief in the conspiracy theory. (all government agencies, scientific institutes and media outlets being in on it. New technologies, like stealth demolitions)
And one isdirectly stated by him (the fact the reporter letting it slip blows open the conspiracy.)

So that leaves: holographic planes.
I am not sure if Garlic Bread believes that this is part of the conspiracy.

I doubt you would have to have that many people involved to pull it off really, just a few hundred people from various 3 letter agencies, or maybe an international group. Add to that a few media shills here and there. Its a bit niave to think that somone would spill the beans, you would end up with a bullet in the head.

Look at all the countries that invaded Afganistan, im sure they would have lent a helping hand, who the hell wouldnt want a piece of that action.

We can spend another hundred years going on about the detail of minor things which we will never truely know, or we can just cut to the chase that most people already know is true anyway.

911 is as fake as the war on terror. In reality, the vast majority of arab people who fight against the coalition forces are just normal people who have suffered human right abuses or who are defending their gaff from oil addicted industrial nations. Thats the sad truth of it, but you cant say that on TV, it just looks too bad.

I think the reason why its so important that 911 is held togather is that if it fell apart there would be alot of questions raised over many other attacks.

Far fetched you say? Heres a good example of how the world really works. Yall remember these two SAS lads in Iraq? Dressed up as arabs, driving around shooting people, including policemen, with a car full of explosives and weapons. Heres the truth -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCxqLgWuiTA
Its called divide and conquer, the brits have made it an art. Just get the sunnis and shias to blow the sh1t outta themselves instead of the occupying forces. But then they got caught! Watch how the media spins it.

Heres channel 4's take on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZRXlsXC1gg

Heres BBC's take on it from a later report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_kFUc-Hgw&feature=related

You see how the media works? They work within their political limits and will do as they are told. The media and the 3 letter agencies are well connected. How could a three letter agency go around murdering, maiming and terrorizing with actual real journalists reporting the truth about it? They couldnt. The above example is only the tip of the iceberg.

And by the way, the scientific community in the USA have been very vocal about the fallacy of the collapse theory.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Again, doesn't make any sense.
If this is the case, why not use a video to clear up other, actual scandals.
Like the lack of WMDs or the lack of a connection between Sadam and Al-Qaeda?

I'd have to look at the release of all other fake Bin Laden recordings and examine the events surrounding them to present a valid theory for each one.

Not forgetting the general theory that these videos keeps Bin Laden alive, in a sense. The 2001 video was released the same day Bin Ladens death was reported, IIRC.

So how do you know the first one is real?

It looks like Bin Laden, for a start.

Any that relies on facts and evidence.
Alex Jones' site does not.

So Alex Jones is lying when vhe names a professor who claims the tape is fake?

Honestly I'd prefer you'd actually present the argument and evidence yourself rather than you copy pasting from a site.

Honestly, I don't think it matters what I say.

Well looks to me like the German specialist can be as guilty of the stuff he's accusing the Americans of.

How so?

There are many other translators that don't have any issue with the translation done by the Americans.

Who?

Also the article makes a lot of editorialising which kinda destroys it's credibility.

Where?

And to be clear, do you believe that the video in question is actually of Bin Laden, just the translation is wrong?

It doesn't appear to be Bin Laden, and according to the German translators the translation is wrong.

King Mob

GarlicBread wrote: »

I doubt you would have to have that many people involved to pull it off really, just a few hundred people from various 3 letter agencies, or maybe an international group. Add to that a few media shills here and there. Its a bit niave to think that somone would spill the beans, you would end up with a bullet in the head.

And only 2 people knew what Clinton and Lewinski were up to, yet that got out.
And if you're subscribing to the demolition theory, thousands would have to be involved and kept quiet.

GarlicBread wrote: »

And by the way, the scientific community in the USA have been very vocal about the fallacy of the collapse theory.

And how come it's only individual scientists and not say a major, official organisation?

But if you feel you've irrefutable proof why not take the challenge?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69448335

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I'd have to look at the release of all other fake Bin Laden recordings and examine the events surrounding them to present a valid theory for each one.

Not forgetting the general theory that these videos keeps Bin Laden alive, in a sense. The 2001 video was released the same day Bin Ladens death was reported, IIRC.

Doesn't answer that question.

Hookah wrote: »

It looks like Bin Laden, for a start.

And it looks like Bin Laden in the "fake" ones?
Do you have any other evidence?

Hookah wrote: »

So Alex Jones is lying when vhe names a professor who claims the tape is fake?

Does he provide verifiable evidence about the video? Or is he just relying on the word of this professor?

Hookah wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think it matters what I say.

All I'm looking for is some of the clear, verifiable evidence that convinced you.

Hookah wrote: »

How so?

"The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

He could be just as guilty of this.

Hookah wrote: »

Who?

Al the translators who worked on it? Or these guys:
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html

SAS: ...there was the much earlier amateurishly filmed video tape that the American government says they found in Afghanistan... in which a militant Saudi sheikh, visiting with Bin Ladin leads Bin Ladin into an acknowledgement that it was Al-Qa'ida operatives known only to him and a few others, who staged the operation and Bin Ladin re-enacts his great joy when the operation succeeded well beyond his expectations. My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin but my intuition also told me that the Sheikh was an intelligence agent, probably for the Americans and the their taped conversation a sting operation. A few days later a respectable British newspaper confirmed it was a sting but they said it was set up by Saudi intelligence. And certainly the former head of Saudi intelligence has made it clear in no uncertain terms that 9/11 was an Al-Qa'ida operation. Now despite all of this and other documentation, so many Arabs were in a state of denial and many are still in a state of denial, insisting that Al-Qa'ida or any Arabs for that matter could not have had anything to do with this operation, that this was a Mossad or CIA operation.

YF: ...Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa'ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh's video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.
SAS: I understand what you are saying and I've been convinced of that tape's authenticity since the beginning. And your experience just confirms it.

Hookah wrote: »

Where?

Of course, if we ever hear about the German analysis in the US press, the reactions will be that some will never believe that OBL is behind the attacks no matter what you tell them. But actually, Americans are just as stubborn in refusing to face facts. One moderator on Fox News complained to his interviewee that the European media were focusing too much on civilian casualties in Afghanistan. (I wondered which European languages this moderator could speak; a few weeks later, he happened to say on his show that he had had "three years of German". This, he claimed, would allow him to "do the show in German.") His interviewee responded that, yes, the Taliban were very savvy manipulators of the media. So there we have it: Europeans get their information straight from the Taliban Ministry of Propaganda.

Hookah wrote: »

It doesn't appear to be Bin Laden, and according to the German translators the translation is wrong.

But do the German translators actually say it's not Bin Laden?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Doesn't answer that question.

I'm not privy to the inner working of US Military Psy-operations projects.

And it looks like Bin Laden in the "fake" ones?
Do you have any other evidence?

Not to me it doesn't.

Does he provide verifiable evidence about the video? Or is he just relying on the word of this professor?


All I'm looking for is some of the clear, verifiable evidence that convinced you.

There are some other indications, such as the jewellery he wears, which is prohibited by the Wahabis, the fact he writes with his left hand, whilst he himself is left-handed, the amount of weight he has put on for the video etc.

But remember, it's a theory.

I can no more prove as fact my theory that the video is fake than you can prove your theory that the video is real.

Al the translators who worked on it? Or these guys:
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html

There might be something in that.

But do the German translators actually say it's not Bin Laden?

No.

Di0genes

GarlicBread wrote: »

I doubt you would have to have that many people involved to pull it off really, just a few hundred people from various 3 letter agencies, or maybe an international group. Add to that a few media shills here and there. Its a bit niave to think that somone would spill the beans, you would end up with a bullet in the head.

Watergate a conspiracy of a few dozen people fell apart in much simpler methods. It's a bit arrogant to assume the all would be scared silent.

For example it's been a decade since the attack. Even if a few hundred (and I dispute that figure) were involved whats the odds that one of them hasn't gotten something like cancer and made a death bed confession of their crimes.

Look at all the countries that invaded Afganistan, im sure they would have lent a helping hand, who the hell wouldnt want a piece of that action.

Source? And please explain the financial benefits of the war in Afghanistan.

We can spend another hundred years going on about the detail of minor things which we will never truely know, or we can just cut to the chase that most people already know is true anyway.

Or lets not. Lets discuss the details. The conspiracy theories loath the details. They exposes the weakness in their arguments.

For example you claim it would only take a "few hundred agents and the media shills" to carry out 9/11.

Why don't you explain what you think happened, and we'll see if it stands up to scrutiny.

911 is as fake as the war on terror. In reality, the vast majority of arab people who fight against the coalition forces are just normal people who have suffered human right abuses or who are defending their gaff from oil addicted industrial nations. Thats the sad truth of it, but you cant say that on TV, it just looks too bad.

Yes those taliban who murder women for dancing or going to school, are defending against human rights abuses. Jesus wept.

I think the reason why its so important that 911 is held togather is that if it fell apart there would be alot of questions raised over many other attacks.

Far fetched you say? Heres a good example of how the world really works. Yall remember these two SAS lads in Iraq? Dressed up as arabs, driving around shooting people, including policemen, with a car full of explosives and weapons. Heres the truth -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCxqLgWuiTA
Its called divide and conquer, the brits have made it an art. Just get the sunnis and shias to blow the sh1t outta themselves instead of the occupying forces. But then they got caught! Watch how the media spins it.

Heres channel 4's take on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZRXlsXC1gg

Heres BBC's take on it from a later report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_kFUc-Hgw&feature=related

You see how the media works? They work within their political limits and will do as they are told. The media and the 3 letter agencies are well connected. How could a three letter agency go around murdering, maiming and terrorizing with actual real journalists reporting the truth about it? They couldnt. The above example is only the tip of the iceberg.

Actually I think you'll find the "mainstream media" did report on this incident as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1498802/Troops-free-SAS-men-from-jail.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article570571.ece

OOPPPSSSS..........

You see the media isn't a bunch of government shills, and thousands of people work for these agencies, and they'd all (or hundreds really) need to be on it

And by the way, the scientific community in the USA have been very vocal about the fallacy of the collapse theory.

Really where? Please quote AIE for truth. We can have a giggle about my membership in that group of handful of crack pots.

Brown Bomber

Just for clarity King Mob do you believe the fat, left-handed, stub nosed Bin Laden is the real deal?

And btw the 93 bomb was built by an FBI asset, and former Egyptian army officer at the behest of the FBI and Ramzi Youssef the main conspirator was trained in a CIA funded camp.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I'm not privy to the inner working of US Military Psy-operations projects.

Except you do when you wish to explain their motives...
Odd how you only can't seem to speculate when there's a contradiction you can't explain.

Hookah wrote: »

Not to me it doesn't.

And to me it does... It's almost as if it's a subjective opinion...

Hookah wrote: »

There are some other indications, such as the jewellery he wears, which is prohibited by the Wahabis, the fact he writes with his left hand, whilst he himself is left-handed, the amount of weight he has put on for the video etc.

Now, assuming all this is true and totally proves it's a fake, why after years of detailed planning on the greatest crime ever did they make mistakes like these?

Hookah wrote: »

But remember, it's a theory.

I can no more prove as fact my theory that the video is fake than you can prove your theory that the video is real.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for the clear verifiable evidence that convinced you.

Hookah wrote: »

No.

So how come they only commented on the translation?

And if they were faking the entire video with a fake Osama, why is the translation wrong or open to interpretation?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Except you do when you wish to explain their motives...
Odd how you only can't seem to speculate when there's a contradiction you can't explain.

I've offered several motives at this stage for the 2001 video.

I just haven't speculated on the videos they haven't made, that you keep asking me about.

And to me it does... It's almost as if it's a subjective opinion...

That goes without saying.

Now, assuming all this is true and totally proves it's a fake, why after years of detailed planning on the greatest crime ever did they make mistakes like these?

They're only human.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for the clear verifiable evidence that convinced you.

Explain the difference between proof and clear verifiable evidence.

If there was clear, verifiable evidence it would no longer be a theory.

So how come they only commented on the translation?

You would have to ask them.

And if they were faking the entire video with a fake Osama, why is the translation wrong or open to interpretation?

Perhaps tweaked prior to broadcasting by the administration. A rush job, perhaps.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I've offered several motives at this stage for the 2001 video.

I just haven't speculated on the videos they haven't made, that you keep asking me about.

Which is my point, you feel you've enough knowledge to guess their motivations when it suits you.

Hookah wrote: »

They're only human.

And yet they to all that trouble finding people fluent in the right language with the perfect accents, give them the proper dress, make up and a script. Yet they forget to take off the one thing that would totally destroy the illusion...

Hookah wrote: »

Explain the difference between proof and clear verifiable evidence.

If there was clear, verifiable evidence it would no longer be a theory.

Proof is in the realm of pure maths and logic. Clear Verifiable evidence is pretty self explanitory.
And again, I'm only asking you for the evidence that convinced you.

Hookah wrote: »

You would have to ask them.

You'd think with it being obviously fake and all they'd have called it out on that, not a few grammar issues.

Hookah wrote: »

Perhaps tweaked prior to broadcasting by the administration. A rush job, perhaps.

So in their rush the wrote a script that not only has a subtle translation, also is entirely ambiguous in regards what you need it to say to reach your goal...

I really don't see how these supposed conspirators can be so incompetent, yet still pull it off.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

Which is my point, you feel you've enough knowledge to guess their motivations when it suits you.

I'm theorising.

This is the conspiracy theories forum, remember.

And yet they to all that trouble finding people fluent in the right language with the perfect accents, give them the proper dress, make up and a script. Yet they forget to take off the one thing that would totally destroy the illusion...

Just goes to show, nobody's perfect.

Proof is in the realm of pure maths and logic. Clear Verifiable evidence is pretty self explanitory.

Unless you get into probabilities logic, quantum logic, von Neumann's logic, Rappaport's logic, fuzzy logic etc.

It's the absoluteness of most non-conspiracy theorists in denying probability or possibility that begins to grate.

And again, I'm only asking you for the evidence that convinced you

And I've already answered that.

You'd think with it being obviously fake and all they'd have called it out on that, not a few grammar issues.

Again, you'd have to ask them.

So in their rush the wrote a script that not only has a subtle translation, also is entirely ambiguous in regards what you need it to say to reach your goal...

That's one possibility.

I really don't see how these supposed conspirators can be so incompetent, yet still pull it off.

I've kinda guessed that already.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

I'm theorising.

This is the conspiracy theories forum, remember.

And when I ask you to theorise solutions to the contradictions your other theorisings lead to, you suddenly say you can't theorise.

Hookah wrote: »

Just goes to show, nobody's perfect.

And yet, they have so perfectly covered up everything thing else there hasn't been a single person who's come forward...

Hookah wrote: »

Unless you get into probabilities logic, quantum logic, von Neumann's logic, Rappaport's logic, fuzzy logic etc.

It's the absoluteness of most non-conspiracy theorists in denying probability or possibility that begins to grate.

And I've already answered that.

All I am asking for is the verifiable evidence you used to reach you conclusion. It doesn't matter which conspiracy site it comes from as long as it's factual and verifiable.
But since you've been dancing around this subject, I'm not going to hold my breath.

And if you'd like to talk probability, which is more probable: A vast international conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of people, fantastical new technologies and billions upon billions of dollars OR some people on the internet are just wrong?

Hookah wrote: »

Again, you'd have to ask them.

So you can't think of a good reason why they would criticise the grammar of the translation but not comment at all on the "obvious" signs of fakery?
I can think of one.

Hookah wrote: »

That's one possibility.

Not a very likely, or sensible one.

Hookah wrote: »

I've kinda guessed that already.

So do you think that the conspirators are capable of such Blackadderesque levels of incompetence?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

And when I ask you to theorise solutions to the contradictions your other theorisings lead to, you suddenly say you can't theorise.

Your asking me to invent theories for videos that never appeared?

And yet, they have so perfectly covered up everything thing else there hasn't been a single person who's come forward...

Not to my knowledge.

All I am asking for is the verifiable evidence you used to reach you conclusion. It doesn't matter which conspiracy site it comes from as long as it's factual and verifiable.
But since you've been dancing around this subject, I'm not going to hold my breath.

And I've already told you. Do I have to repeat myself?

And if you'd like to talk probability, which is more probable: A vast international conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of people, fantastical new technologies and billions upon billions of dollars OR some people on the internet are just wrong?

Up to a hundred, I'd wager.

I have no time for most conspiracy theories. I argue against them. But when I see overwhelming evidence of one, such as in this case, I have to consider the possibility that a conspiracy has occurred.

So you can't think of a good reason why they would criticise the grammar of the translation but not comment at all on the "obvious" signs of fakery?
I can think of one.

I'm sure you can.

Not a very likely, or sensible one.

I'm sure it isn't.

So do you think that the conspirators are capable of such Blackadderesque levels of incompetence?

If only it were as funny.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Your asking me to invent theories for videos that never appeared?

No I'm asking why you think these videos don't exist when your logic says they should.

Hookah wrote: »

Not to my knowledge.

But they're only human as you say, how come there hasn't anyone come forward?

Hookah wrote: »

And I've already told you. Do I have to repeat myself?

But you haven't. This line of reasoning started with you asking what conspiracy sites I would accept. You have not posted any evidence for any of you conclusions.

Hookah wrote: »

Up to a hundred, I'd wager.

I have no time for most conspiracy theories. I argue against them. But when I see overwhelming evidence of one, such as in this case, I have to consider the possibility that a conspiracy has occurred.

And isn't also possible that this conspiracy is just as wrong as the ones you don't buy into?

Hookah wrote: »

I'm sure you can.

Yes, the video isn't fake.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

No I'm asking why you think these videos don't exist when your logic says they should.

For the WMD they invented the dodgy dossier. No video required, for Saddam's link to Al Qaeda they had Rumsfeld's 'bulletproof evidence'. No video required etc.

But they're only human as you say, how come there hasn't anyone come forward?

The type of human who's capable of complicity in the murder of 3000 people may not be stirred by their conscience.

But you haven't. This line of reasoning started with you asking what conspiracy sites I would accept. You have not posted any evidence for any of you conclusions.

Here's some evidence on the 2004 video...http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2007/09/12/digital-forensics-expert-osama-video-definite-fake

And isn't also possible that this conspiracy is just as wrong as the ones you don't buy into?

It doesn't appear that way to me, or I'd be arguing on your side.

Yes, the video isn't fake.

This is another possibility.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

For the WMD they invented the dodgy dossier. No video required, for Saddam's link to Al Qaeda they had Rumsfeld's 'bulletproof evidence'. No video required etc.

But they have tons of other evidence linking Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to 9/11, why did they need the video then?
Why not supplement all those events with videos like you've said they did with 9/11 simply to help bush get re-elected?

Hookah wrote: »

The type of human who's capable of complicity in the murder of 3000 people may not be stirred by their conscience.

Yes, but they're also only human, so how come none have tried to come forward and get rich off it? Or just mess up and let it slip?

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, the conspiracy can't be all powerful and also stupid enough to make simple mistakes.

Hookah wrote: »

Here's some evidence on the 2004 video...http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2007/09/12/digital-forensics-expert-osama-video-definite-fake

No, I'm not just going to read the article and do your work for you. I'm asking you to to provide the specific evidence that shows the video to be a fake. Which bits of that article support the claims you've made so far?
I do like how you've shifted the goalposts back to the 2004 video as well.

Hookah wrote: »

It doesn't appear that way to me, or I'd be arguing on your side.

This is another possibility.

So quick question, is there any evidence or logic that would convince you there wasn't a conspiracy?

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

But they have tons of other evidence linking Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to 9/11, why did they need the video then?
Why not supplement all those events with videos like you've said they did with 9/11 simply to help bush get re-elected?


Yes, but they're also only human, so how come none have tried to come forward and get rich off it? Or just mess up and let it slip?

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, the conspiracy can't be all powerful and also stupid enough to make simple mistakes.

No, I'm not just going to read the article and do your work for you. I'm asking you to to provide the specific evidence that shows the video to be a fake. Which bits of that article support the claims you've made so far?
I do like how you've shifted the goalposts back to the 2004 video as well.


So quick question, is there any evidence or logic that would convince you there wasn't a conspiracy?

Thanks for your time.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

Thanks for your time.

You're welcome.
Whenever you feel like being intellectually honest and want to actually examine your belief critically, I'll be more than happy to help.

Hookah

King Mob wrote: »

You're welcome.
Whenever you feel like being intellectually honest and want to actually examine your belief critically, I'll be more than happy to help.

And for such a patronising remark, I'll be more than happy to ignore you in future debates.

King Mob

Hookah wrote: »

And for such a patronising remark, I'll be more than happy to ignore you in future debates.

And ignoring all of my points with a "thank you for your time" isn't patronising or disrespectful?

Mighty high horse you're riding there.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

And for such a patronising remark, I'll be more than happy to ignore you in future debates.

Does it also not occur to you that there's more than one bilingual Arab/English speaker in the world?

If there was a massive difference between Bin Laden's speech, and one translation, surely the outcry would be greater than one translation?

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Does it also not occur to you that there's more than one bilingual Arab/English speaker in the world?

If there was a massive difference between Bin Laden's speech, and one translation, surely the outcry would be greater than one translation?

It has occurred to me, yes.

In my google searches so far I can find one translation which says the government translation is correct, and one which says some of the wording was 'manipulated'.

1 -1 so far.

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

It has occurred to me, yes.

In my google searches so far I can find one translation which says the government translation is correct, and one which says some of the wording was 'manipulated'.

1 -1 so far.

Those are conspiracy nonsense searches.

Perhaps finding someone who speaks both Arabic and English and a original copy of the broadcast.