Secret CIA Bin Laden Training Facility…or Stage?

Run_to_da_hills

This is well worth posting because its funny or should I say sad because so many people swallow it. Many of us already had doubts about the staged shoot out of Bin Laden or even his existence at all over the last ten years but this final piece of icing on the cake takes the biscuit.

Before you read the article below, just think. They’ve supposedly found a fugitive’s hide out and assume they have enough time to reconstruct the whole thing and practice rather than just go in and get him? Nonsense. Whatta scam. He’d been dead for 10 years already anyway.


That’s an aerial shot of Harvey Point Defense Testing, a CIA training facility in North Carolina. It was taken on February 15, 2011. Look familiar?



Here’s a shot of Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, shortly after the May 2011 raid.



view of the larger CIA center with the mock-up circled in red:



Its Gone. :eek:

So while something did apparently transpire at a similar location in Pakistan, this way they can be sure they get certain camera shots for the cover story and it goes down according to plan. And as you’ll see below, they erased the evidence of the so-called “training” location completely….as well as the Navy SEALs that supposedly performed the fake operation who were conveniently shot down in a helicopter in Afghanistan.

Erase erase.

The whole operation was full of holes from the get go, but this makes a nice final nail in the coffin if you ask me.

http://www.zengardner.com/found-secret-cia-bin-laden-training-facility-or-stage/

JustinDee

Once intel is agreed upon that it confirms a target is genuine and ripe, training begins. This training takes into account every minute physical detail. This isn't a new method of operations. IDF, for example, did it ahead of Entebbe. British and US expeditionary forces did same before the capture of Reims airfield during World War II.

You don't just "go in".
This, and life, isn't a bloody computer game.

Monty Burnz

From the aerial shot, you can't tell whether the mock-up is made out of MDF, cardboard, lines marked on the ground etc. - but it seems rather likely that it was.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is well worth posting because its funny or should I say sad because so many people swallow it. Many of us already had doubts about the staged shoot out of Bin Laden or even his existence at all over the last ten years but this final piece of icing on the cake takes the biscuit.

Before you read the article below, just think. They’ve supposedly found a fugitive’s hide out and assume they have enough time to reconstruct the whole thing and practice rather than just go in and get him? Nonsense. Whatta scam. He’d been dead for 10 years already anyway.


That’s an aerial shot of Harvey Point Defense Testing, a CIA training facility in North Carolina. It was taken on February 15, 2011. Look familiar?



Here’s a shot of Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, shortly after the May 2011 raid.



view of the larger CIA center with the mock-up circled in red:



Its Gone. :eek:

So while something did apparently transpire at a similar location in Pakistan, this way they can be sure they get certain camera shots for the cover story and it goes down according to plan. And as you’ll see below, they erased the evidence of the so-called “training” location completely….as well as the Navy SEALs that supposedly performed the fake operation who were conveniently shot down in a helicopter in Afghanistan.

Erase erase.

The whole operation was full of holes from the get go, but this makes a nice final nail in the coffin if you ask me.

http://www.zengardner.com/found-secret-cia-bin-laden-training-facility-or-stage/

RTDH, it's well known the US built a to-scale model of the compound in the planning phase. They considered a lot of other options too, such as a missile strike and a joint-operation with the Pakistani's (both ruled out)

hooradiation

Planning and training ahead of time?

My god, how sinister.

No, wait, sensible.
That was the word I meant to use.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

Planning and training ahead of time?

My god, how sinister.

No, wait, sensible.
That was the word I meant to use.

I presume they do similar planning and training ahead of time before they launch their "surgical" drone attacks against so called "terrorists'. :rolleyes:

JustinDee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I presume they do similar planning and training ahead of time before they launch their "surgical" drone attacks against so called "terrorists'. :rolleyes:

Look, you brought up the subject. Now when logic is applied it, explaining clearly what you have linked, it doesn't suit whatever the latest idea in your head is so you try a little deflection to weight it out.

Doesn't work like that, fella.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I presume they do similar planning and training ahead of time before they launch their "surgical" drone attacks against so called "terrorists'. :rolleyes:

I doubt it. Although I'm sure I could post some pictures of US installations somewhere to 'prove' otherwise. Coincidence?

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I presume they do similar planning and training ahead of time before they launch their "surgical" drone attacks against so called "terrorists'. :rolleyes:

Why don't you read up on this stuff? surely there has to be some common ground - try wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

RTDH for your homework, read the entire piece from start to finish! References are available at the bottom for expansion on points. At least speculate from a position of knowledge rather than speculating from a position of acute suspicion.

studiorat

Runners, it might be a little off topic but do you have a quick way to copy and paste the images from the david icke site you got this info from?

or do you re-host each image separately?

tricky D

It's in at least one of the two documentaries as a mockup for practice.

Killing Bin Laden
Targetting Bin Laden

so nothing to see here

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Zen Gardener is also the editor of "Before Its News" I would put him ahead of Icke and Jones.

More creative than both? To be fair, those guys set a high bar.

Run_to_da_hills

studiorat wrote: »

Runners, it might be a little off topic but do you have a quick way to copy and paste the images from the david icke site you got this info from?

or do you re-host each image separately?

I did come across this on Icke first however he is not the editor of the original article.

I will always chase up and quote the source of any article from Jones, Icke or who ever else so as to give some credit to the editor who in this case is Zen Gardener.

I am a good fan of this guy for his originality, creativity and sense of humor. I quote him quite regularly as you can see from other postings.

tricky D wrote: »

It's in at least one of the two documentaries as a mockup for practice.

Killing Bin Laden
Targetting Bin Laden

so nothing to see here

The funny thing about all this is that both the mock up and actual "event" were obviously staged.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Zen Gardener is also the editor of "Before Its News" I would put him ahead of Icke and Jones.

More creative than both? To be fair, those guys set a high bar.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

More creative than both? To be fair, those guys set a high bar.

From a less commercial point no.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I presume they do similar planning and training ahead of time before they launch their "surgical" drone attacks against so called "terrorists'. :rolleyes:

You can presume that all you want, but you'd be wrong.

You do understand these are very different operations, right? The members of seal team six are impressive, but they are not blessed with the power of flight.

Gumbi

Guys, why do you even engage? We're dealing with some who thinks Obama IS Osama, or some such nonsense to that effect. Don't bother.

hooradiation

Gumbi wrote: »

Guys, why do you even engage?

Funsies, mostly.

Also, I would like to think his continued failure to engage even the most basic questions put to him will serve to demonstrate to any third parties reading the veracity of his claims.

Gumbi

hooradiation wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Guys, why do you even engage?

Funsies, mostly.

Also, I would like to think his continued failure to engage even the most basic questions put to him will serve to demonstrate to any third parties reading the veracity of his claims.

Fair enough. As long as we're on the same page regarding his...mental faculties

I like to minimise the credibility afforded to these kinds of people.

Brown Bomber

JustinDee wrote: »

Look, you brought up the subject. Now when logic is applied it, explaining clearly what you have linked, it doesn't suit whatever the latest idea in your head is so you try a little deflection to weight it out.

Doesn't work like that, fella.

Could you explain the "logic" in creating a replica of a location for training already trained/skilled commandos when the target could conceivably change locations in the time that the replica is built?

What if he kept on the move? Keep building new replicas until you can build one before he moves on?

I'd like to question you on your "little idea" that Bin Laden was actually killed that day. Can you provide proof of this?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain the "logic" in creating a replica of a location for training already trained/skilled commandos when the target could conceivably change locations in the time that the replica is built?

It looks like most of the 'replica' was just lines marked on the ground. Probably could have built the whole thing in a day or two. And if the intelligence they had that he was there was good enough to rely on, then it presumably included the fact that he had been there quite a while.

It also occurs to me that the boxes marked out were where the two helicopters were to land, suggesting that the whole thing could have been there just to allow the helicopter pilots identify the place from the air and know the insertion points - so there need not be any actual proper buildings on the ground at all.

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain the "logic" in creating a replica of a location for training already trained/skilled commandos when the target could conceivably change locations in the time that the replica is built?

Could you explain the "logic" in an already skilled boxer sparing with a particular style of opponent before a fight when the opponent might change his style anyway?

I'll save you the trouble, I'm sure you already know the answer as its common sense, if you have a chance to gain an advantage in any type of training that you life depends on you would have to be a fool to not take it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd like to question you on your "little idea" that Bin Laden was actually killed that day. Can you provide proof of this?

Come on be honest its not anyones "little idea" that Bin laden was killed that day, I will presume that your own theory is better than RTDH theory that Bin Laden and Obama are the same person, so can you detail your own theory and provide proof please.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain the "logic" in creating a replica of a location for training already trained/skilled commandos when the target could conceivably change locations in the time that the replica is built?

Why not, when they have the resources? This whole forum is dedicated to the US flawlessly pulling off insanely complex laborious plans, yet when they actually do use one to capture (kill) one of the world's most wanted men, it seems a little inconceivable they plan for it?

What if he kept on the move? Keep building new replicas until you can build one before he moves on?

Well he was there for 5 years, I think they used a little "logic" to get the exercise right first time round.

I'd like to question you on your "little idea" that Bin Laden was actually killed that day. Can you provide proof of this?

Really, when and where was he actually killed? can you provide proof of this?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why not, when they have the resources? ?

They don't have the resources to ensure that Bin Laden didn't move safehouses in the time it took to recreate a replica and engage in training.

SEALS are amongst the most highly skilled/trained murderers in the world. Specifically what training would they have done that would be so worthwhile that it was worth the risk that Bin Laden could change location in the meantime.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Really, when and where was he actually killed? can you provide proof of this?

I reserve judgement on Bin Laden until I am presented with proof. I take it you don't have any so?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I reserve judgement on Bin Laden until I am presented with proof. I take it you don't have any so?

To be fair, he does seem to have gone awfully quiet since the US claim to have killed him, and there is no evidence beyond the claims of western conspiracy theorists that he died previous to the SEAL raid.

Brown Bomber

gibraltar wrote: »

Could you explain the "logic" in an already skilled boxer sparing with a particular style of opponent before a fight when the opponent might change his style anyway?

I'll save you the trouble, I'm sure you already know the answer as its common sense, if you have a chance to gain an advantage in any type of training that you life depends on you would have to be a fool to not take it.

False comparison. The boxer is training for a scheduled event that has been agreed by both parties.

Speaking of "common sense" surely you would be a fool to take the risk of having tracked down the most wanted man on the planet who has evaded you for year and years to let him slip through your fingers again by training already higly-trained people?

gibraltar wrote: »

Come on be honest its not anyones "little idea" that Bin laden was killed that day, I will presume that your own theory is better than RTDH theory that Bin Laden and Obama are the same person, so can you detail your own theory and provide proof please.

I take it this is you also saying "I don't have any proof but I am going to believe what I want to believe anyway!, so let's avoid that and you prove something - even though you haven't claimed anything".

Oh, and apparently people "believing" in conpiracy theories like your and Jonny's Bin Laden CT, without strong evidence has something to do with dopamine.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair, he does seem to have gone awfully quiet since the US claim to have killed him, and there is no evidence beyond the claims of western conspiracy theorists that he died previous to the SEAL raid.

Going quiet is not proof of death. It's proof of not saying anything.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Going quiet is not proof of death. It's proof of not saying anything.

And proof that he died years before? Or is still alive?

The US will look very, very silly if any concrete proof emerges that he still lives, or died prior to the raid. Do you think they would risk their credibility?

Rew

Mocking up the building and practicing is standard procedure. Its been widely reported they built a mock up and that they were watching the building for months to establish that he was there. The SEALs weren't even told it was Bin Laden until shortly before they went in.

When the SAS were called in for the Iranian embassy first thing they did was mock up the embassy layout with tape on the floor of a school gym and practice the raid relentlessly. Special Forces are not super human, there just well trained they all use the phrase "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" which means they practice the **** out of everything until its second nature. The SAS moto is "Who Dares Wins" but the in joke is that its really "Who Plans Wins".

They war game these operations methodically playing out different scenarios and contingencies. TBH this isn't even unique to Special Forces, practising and rehearsing is built in to procedures of all units at all levels.

Making a conspiracy out of this is ignoring that fact that it was already public knowledge, intelligence and surveillance leading up to the raid and long established military standard operation procedures...

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

SEALS are amongst the most highly skilled/trained murderers in the world. Specifically what training would they have done that would be so worthwhile that it was worth the risk that Bin Laden could change location in the meantime.

They've botched plenty of missions.

If he moved safehouses they could have tracked him (despite him being there for years), however if they ****ed up the mission, the guy would definitely be gone.

I reserve judgement on Bin Laden until I am presented with proof. I take it you don't have any so?

Odd, I don't remember you requiring as much proof for the latest conspiracy theory, I'll have to remember that

There is plenty of straight-forward evidence and threads on the matter. What do you want.. Pakistanis admitting it? Al Qaeda statement on the matter? every government and spy agency in the known world accepting it?

Gumbi

Rew wrote: »

Mocking up the building and practicing is standard procedure. Its been widely reported they built a mock up and that they were watching the building for months to establish that he was there. The SEALs weren't even told it was Bin Laden until shortly before they went in.

When the SAS were called in for the Iranian embassy first thing they did was mock up the embassy layout with tape on the floor of a school gym and practice the raid relentlessly. Special Forces are not super human, there just well trained they all use the phrase "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" which means they practice the **** out of everything until its second nature. The SAS moto is "Who Dares Wins" but the in joke is that its really "Who Plans Wins".

They war game these operations methodically playing out different scenarios and contingencies. TBH this isn't even unique to Special Forces, practising and rehearsing is built in to procedures of all units at all levels.

Making a conspiracy out of this is ignoring that fact that it was already public knowledge, intelligence and surveillance leading up to the raid and long established military standard operation procedures...

Absolutely. Preparing in such a manner is par for the course for essentially the most specialised team of soldiers in the world.

Brown Bomber

Rew wrote: »

Mocking up the building and practicing is standard procedure. Its been widely reported they built a mock up and that they were watching the building for months to establish that he was there.

What specifically were they training in that they couldn't do before that was worth waiting for considering 9-11 part two could have been in the final stages of planning?

Rew wrote: »

The SEALs weren't even told it was Bin Laden until shortly before they went in.

This is false.
They were told weeks before.

Rew wrote: »

When the SAS were called in for the Iranian embassy first thing they did was mock up the embassy layout with tape on the floor of a school gym and practice the raid relentlessly.

The "first thing" the SAS did was meet up in a school gym and go through drills? All the while the situation at the embassy could have changed in a split second and the Iranian terrorists could have opened fire on the hostages.?

I have deep reservations about your claim.

You seem to have a good knowledge though, would you mind if I asked you why they had two mock-ups built of bin Laden's safehouse?

Brown Bomber

Gumbi wrote: »

Absolutely. Preparing in such a manner is par for the course for essentially the most specialised team of soldiers in the world.

How much training do you need to kill women and an unarmed old man in house full of children?

And why is the training required different if your name happens to be Osama Bin Laden? Are you aware that kill/capture night-raids happen in Pashtun Afghanistan almost every night?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

They've botched plenty of missions.

If he moved safehouses they could have tracked him (despite him being there for years), however if they ****ed up the mission, the guy would definitely be gone.

You didn't answer the question.

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is plenty of straight-forward evidence and threads on the matter. What do you want.. Pakistanis admitting it? Al Qaeda statement on the matter? every government and spy agency in the known world accepting it?

What do I want? Hard evidence. Got any...?

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

False comparison. The boxer is training for a scheduled event that has been agreed by both parties.
.

Wrong - the boxer is training for all possible outcomes, the course of the fight has not been agreed.


Answer a question - you are a highly trained person, skilled in your field - i can give you a training opportunity that will increase your chances of successfully completing your next job by as little as 2%. will you take the training?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Speaking of "common sense" surely you would be a fool to take the risk of having tracked down the most wanted man on the planet who has evaded you for year and years to let him slip through your fingers again by training already higly-trained people?

I think it would be worse to have "the most wanted man on the planet " escape from you and boast about it afterwards than to let him slip through your fingers.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I take it this is you also saying "I don't have any proof but I am going to believe what I want to believe anyway!, so let's avoid that and you prove something - even though you haven't claimed anything".
.

I will need clarification of this as it does not make any sense to me, thanks.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, and apparently people "believing" in conpiracy theories like your and Jonny's Bin Laden CT, without strong evidence has something to do with dopamine.

Again I am at a loss, I dont understand what you are talking about, I never mentioned brain chemistry. if your going to have an episode I am not interested, good luck.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How much training do you need to kill women and an unarmed old man in house full of children?

How many of the women and children were killed? How were they to know that the harmless old man (Bin Laden) was unarmed? Perhaps the fact that they weren't all killed was in part due to the training the SEAL operatives undertook?

Gumbi

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How much training do you need to kill women and an unarmed old man in house full of children?

How many of the women and children were killed? How were they to know that the harmless old man (Bin Laden) was unarmed? Perhaps the fact that they weren't all killed was in part due to the training the SEAL operatives undertook?

It's a ridiculous question. I think it's quite clear they trained extensively because f*ck ups were not acceptable. A chance to kill Bin Laden once and for all? Brown Bomber's logic "let's assume it'll be easy and don't bother training for it, she'd there's nothing on the line but time taken for a short trip to Pakistan instead of tea and biscuits".

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How many of the women and children were killed? How were they to know that the harmless old man (Bin Laden) was unarmed? Perhaps the fact that they weren't all killed was in part due to the training the SEAL operatives undertook?

The assumption of innocence should apply to all evenly. One woman was killed. They knew Bin Laden was unarmed because they could see this for themselves.

(this is taking that any of this actually happened for arguments sake)

Despite numerous reports that bin Laden had a weapon and resisted when Navy SEALs entered the room, he was unarmed, writes Owen. He had been fatally wounded before they had entered the room.



"Blood and brains spilled out of the side of his skull” and he was still twitching and convulsing, Owen writes. While bin Laden was in his death throes, Owen writes that he and another SEAL "trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless."
Then the SEALS repeatedly examined his face to make sure he was truly bin Laden. They interrogated a young girl and one of the women who had been wailing over Bin Laden’s body, who verified that it was the terror leader.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/no-easy-day-bin-laden-raid-book_n_1837947.html

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The assumption of innocence should apply to all evenly. One woman was killed. They knew Bin Laden was unarmed because they could see this for themselves.

The presumption of innocence is all well and good but I don't know exactly how it supposed to work in operations like this. Like you, I believe in a world of peace and harmony and that we all should just get along. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a bit of a minority and there are plenty of folks out there just dying to kill each other. I think it's reasonable to expect that some of these people may have been hanging out at Bin Laden's gaff, and some of these folks could even be women.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(this is taking that any of this actually happened for arguments sake)

Indeed - and I think it's entirely possible that either the soldiers were told to take Bin Laden alive if possible and in the execution of the mission they felt it was not safe to do so (based on my extensive Counter Strike counter terrorist experience, you have to make these decisions in fractions of seconds and you frequently get them wrong), or they decided to exact some 'justice' for the thousands killed in terrorist attacks off their own backs.

Brown Bomber

gibraltar wrote: »

Wrong - the boxer is training for all possible outcomes, the course of the fight has not been agreed. .

Once again you've spectacularly missed the point.

The boxer is training for a scheduled bout that has been arranged to occur at a specific time and date with specific rules applying.

It is a frankly stupid analogy. To compare training for something that is publically known to all sides to training for something where the time taken to train for something that you are already fully trained for could jeopardise the whole secret operation or lead to terrorist attacks.

gibraltar wrote: »

Answer a question - you are a highly trained person, skilled in your field - i can give you a training opportunity that will increase your chances of successfully completing your next job by as little as 2%. will you take the training?

You seem to have extreme difficulties in forming appropriate analogies. I'll help you out:
A black wolf has been killing a farmer's sheep for years. The farmer/hunter has vowed to kill it and been tracking the wolf all this time. He is a higly-skilled marksman and has been killing other wolves for fun through a combination of his hi-tech rifle and expert shooting skills, but he has never found the black wolf. One day he is out hunting with his favourite rifle and his friend when he spots the black wolf sleeping. He and the friend watch from a distance and the wolf is completely oblivious. The farmer eyes up the shot and has the sleeping wolf in the sights of the rifle. He can pull the trigger but decides instead to go back to his rifle range for "training" (just in case) and tells the friend to keep an eye on him so he doesn't escape until he gets back.

gibraltar wrote: »

I will need clarification of this as it does not make any sense to me, thanks.

I am asking you to present hard evidence that Bin Laden was killed in Abbotobad.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The presumption of innocence is all well and good but I don't know exactly how it supposed to work in operations like this. Like you, I believe in a world of peace and harmony and that we all should just get along. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a bit of a minority and there are plenty of folks out there just dying to kill each other. I think it's reasonable to expect that some of these people may have been hanging out at Bin Laden's gaff, and some of these folks could even be women.

Indeed - and I think it's entirely possible that either the soldiers were told to take Bin Laden alive if possible and in the execution of the mission they felt it was not safe to do so (based on my extensive Counter Strike counter terrorist experience, you have to make these decisions in fractions of seconds and you frequently get them wrong), or they decided to exact some 'justice' for the thousands killed in terrorist attacks off their own backs.

I agree more or less with everything you've said and anyone adult that chooses to live in a safehouse with Osama Bin Laden is knowingly putting their own life in peril. I'd just like for this to be cleared up. There was so much spin, claims, counter-claims, changing stories that I have large question marks over everything of that day, especially given that NATO murdered Gadaffi's grandchildren hours before, a story which was then buried.

I'm open to the idea that he was killed then. If he is directly responsible for any of the terrorist attacks targetting civilians part of me thinks he deserved it. I am also open to many ideas: that he was long dead / is in a prison in a black site / given a medal of honour and early retirement by the CIA, had a shave and a haircut and now lives in Rio. / that the US mistakenly thought they killed him, announced it, and we are left with a situation that suits both Osama and Obama that the world thinks that OBL is dead.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree more or less with everything you've said and anyone adult that chooses to live in a safehouse with Osama Bin Laden is knowingly putting their own life in peril. I'd just like for this to be cleared up. There was so much spin, claims, counter-claims, changing stories that I have large question marks over everything of that day, especially given that NATO murdered Gadaffi's grandchildren hours before, a story which was then buried.

It's difficult to see how this could have been proved comprehensively, short of filming it all - but even then, it could be claimed to have been staged. If they took the guy alive (which they should have if at all possible) they could have opened a huge can of worms with regard to Western hostages being taken and executed if he were not released. It's a huge mess with no happy ending.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm open to the idea that he was killed then. If he is directly responsible for any of the terrorist attacks targetting civilians part of me thinks he deserved it. I am also open to many ideas: that he was long dead / is in a prison in a black site / given a medal of honour and early retirement by the CIA, had a shave and a haircut and now lives in Rio. / that the US mistakenly thought they killed him, announced it, and we are left with a situation that suits both Osama and Obama that the world thinks that OBL is dead.

The funny thing is that I'm not necessarily persuaded that he was the mastermind of 9/11. I'm happy enough that he was a central figure and leader in a loose alliance of Islamic terrorists - but I would find it quite easy to believe that 9/11 and other actual attacks were organised at a lower level or by a separate group loosely allied to the Al Qaeda 'brand'. I'm quite sure Bin Laden did not think that he was an evil man - a subtlety probably lost on the men who riddled him with bullets.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

Answer: if they had the time, its better to have the incursion team training on a proper mock-up than without.


Why would they have a mock-up otherwise? (if you have a alternative theory as to why they had a replica of the building, we're all ears here)

What do I want? Hard evidence. Got any...?

We'll start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Refute the facts.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

We'll start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Refute the facts.

To believe in that is to believe in a lie.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

To believe in that is to believe in a lie.

That's funny, coming from you. Any word on Obama's head injury?

Gumbi

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

We'll start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Refute the facts.

To believe in that is to believe in a lie.

Well, obviously. I mean, it's not like there's evidence.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Answer: if they had the time, its better to have the incursion team training on a proper mock-up than without.

Why would they have a mock-up otherwise? (if you have a alternative theory as to why they had a replica of the building, we're all ears here)

We'll start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Refute the facts.

Nothing to refute. I've asked for hard evidence not wikipedia pages. Serious question, do you have any?

I said in 2011 that this would be exactly how it would be by this stage. Everyone just naively accepting the official narrative despite lack of any hard evidence due to repitition.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is a frankly stupid analogy. To compare training for something that is publically known to all sides to training for something where the time taken to train for something that you are already fully trained for could jeopardise the whole secret operation or lead to terrorist attacks.
.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, you've written here makes a lick of sense.

Unless we are to assume that terrorists have supernatural powers of divination and that training is a worthless endeavour.
Which would be, as you say, "frankly stupid"

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nothing to refute. I've asked for hard evidence not wikipedia pages. Serious question, do you have any?

An objective or genuine poster yes, you - no. Based on your previous far-out theories etc, a random page from a random news site should be all the "hard evidence" you need.. correct? or incorrect?

If you are actually being genuine (call me skeptical on that) then evidence is clearly available on the wikipedia page.. you can even ignore what's written and go straight to the sources and references at the bottom.

Back to the original topic on the compound, it's becoming more evident that it was a 'capture' mission, hence the more painstaking planning involved.

During the VIP briefing, someone asked whether “this was a kill mission.” A government lawyer responded that it was not. “If he is naked with his hands up, you’re not going to engage him,” the lawyer told the SEALs, adding, “I am not going to tell you how to do your job. What we’re saying is if he does not pose a threat, you will detain him.”

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Nothing, absolutely nothing, you've written here makes a lick of sense.

If you say so, apparently people saying stuff passes as truth now such as "we got him! We have pictures, we swear! We threw him into the sea where nobody can ever find him...We swear!"

hooradiation wrote: »

Unless we are to assume that terrorists have supernatural powers of divination and that training is a worthless endeavour.
Which would be, as you say, "frankly stupid"

Which would be stupid but I've never said that. You've dreamed it up yourself or are intentionally misrepresenting me.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

An objective or genuine poster yes, you - no. Based on your previous far-out theories etc, a random page from a random news site should be all the "hard evidence" you need.. correct? or incorrect?

Incorrect

Jonny7 wrote: »

If you are actually being genuine (call me skeptical on that) then evidence is clearly available on the wikipedia page.. you can even ignore what's written and go straight to the sources and references at the bottom.

I'm looking for hard evidence. Not claims. Do you have any hard evidence to present? Yes or no?