Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BBC 'lose' all 9/11 footage

Options
2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Nothing fake about it apart from 3 mistranslated words. Thats him, on film, admitting to it. Closed case.




    lol

    Again you keep ignorning what the experts said. They clearly said where Bin Laden supposedly admits he was involved with the attack ie the culprit (subtitle part) the translation is problematic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Again you keep ignorning what the experts said. They clearly said where Bin Laden supposedly admits he was involved with the attack ie the culprit (subtitle part) the translation is problematic.

    Theres more than 1 video of him admitting to it. Why would he admit to something he didn't do?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Who knows? you've literally written hundreds of posts feverishly stating he wasn't involved

    In your theory, he was knowingly involved or he wasn't?

    All i know for sure is there was a large number of Saudi nationals involved with hijacking the planes on 9/11. I never seen Atta or his conspirators from 9/11 pictured with Bin laden have you?. There no evidence that directly ties any of the 9/11 hijackers to Bin Laden conclusively .

    We see even today Al Qaeda is group heavily funded by Saudi Intelligence. They are arming them with American weapons to fight the Houtis in Yemen.. We all saw evidence of the ties in Syria civil war also.

    You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11. Where the evidence he was? Were the martyrdom tapes of the 9/11 hijackers? You planning the biggest attack on America soil, since Pearl Harbor, and you don't documented it beforehand? Nobody seems to want to know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded the 9/11 attack? They are supposedly America strongest allies in the Middle East and South Asia. This information should be out there and known so we can understand the reasons why.

    Bin laden is some rogue figure who just emerged from nowhere in the mid 90s. We know very little about him too. One day he just got pissed of with America and decided to have a jihad?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    All i know for sure is there was a large number of Saudi nationals involved with hijacking the planes on 9/11. I never seen Atta or his conspirators from 9/11 pictured with Bin laden have you?. There no evidence that directly ties any of the 9/11 hijackers to Bin Laden conclusively .

    We see even today Al Qaeda is group heavily funded by Saudi Intelligence. They are arming them with American weapons to fight the Houtis in Yemen.. We all saw evidence of the ties in Syria civil war also.

    You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11. Where the evidence he was? Were the martyrdom tapes of the 9/11 hijackers? You planning the biggest attack on America soil, since Pearl Harbor, and you don't documented it beforehand? Nobody seems to want to know why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded the 9/11 attack? They are supposedly America strongest allies in the Middle East and South Asia. This information should be out there and known so we can understand the reasons why.

    Bin laden is some rogue figure who just emerged from nowhere in the mid 90s. We know very little about him too. One day he just got pissed of with America and decided to have a jihad?

    We know loads about him. Loads. There have been countless books and studies about him. In incredible detail, from childhood to death. You clearly don't want to know because learning about him would show that he was behind the attacks. Ignorance is bliss for you.

    Read this and then come back to me.

    https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Michael-Scheuer/dp/0199898391

    Heres your "fake" video totally debunked. Which was unsurprisingly very easy to do. Again.

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Confession_video


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You asking me is Bin Laden Involved in 9/11.

    You're the one challenging historical facts here, claiming it's all somehow wrong, and that your personal account is what really happened, which begs the obvious question..

    In your personal account was Bin Laden involved in the plot or no?

    If yes, how? if no, then what is going on?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    We know loads about him. Loads. There have been countless books and studies about him. In incredible detail, from childhood to death. You clearly don't want to know because learning about him would show that he was behind the attacks. Ignorance is bliss for you.

    Read this and then come back to me.

    https://www.amazon.com/Osama-Bin-Laden-Michael-Scheuer/dp/0199898391

    Heres your "fake" video totally debunked. Which was unsurprisingly very easy to do. Again.

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Confession_video

    You can find hundreds of tapes were different people are talking about the 9/11 events and what happened. Does that automacially mean they planned 9/11? We are talking about the translation of the conversation. Arabic experts have stated Bin Laden does not confess to been involved in the attacks. I never said was not Bin Laden in the video. Bin Laden a week after 9/11 said it was others who pulled off 9/11 not him, this tape is ignored today.

    Look at the history. Al Qeada was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere. Bin Laden past before this murky all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich. The Bin Laden familiy are one of the wealtiest families in Saudi Arabia and are close friends with the Bush family.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    You can find hundreds of tapes were different people are talking about the 9/11 events and what happened. Does that automacially mean they planned 9/11? We are talking about the translation of the conversation. Arabic experts have stated Bin Laden does not confess to been involved in the attacks. I never said was not Bin Laden in the video. Bin Laden a week after 9/11 said it was others who pulled off 9/11 not him, this tape is ignored today.

    It is absolutely not ignored.
    Look at the history. Al Qeada was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere. Bin Laden past before this murky all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich. The Bin Laden familiy are one of the wealtiest families in Saudi Arabia and are close friends with the Bush family.

    Thats all we know is it?

    Thats all you know it seems. Or want to know. Everyone else knows a lot more.

    I'm not going to take the time to give you a Bin Laden bio. Why don't you read a book about him? Or even his wiki page.

    Also if you think Al-Qaeda "emerged out of nowhere" you.... well.... thats just embarrassing, posting that on a public forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    The truth has a habit of being consistent, whereas a bull**** artist constantly has to invent their way out of their own inconsistencies


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You're the one challenging historical facts here, claiming it's all somehow wrong, and that your personal account is what really happened, which begs the obvious question..

    In your personal account was Bin Laden involved in the plot or no?

    If yes, how? if no, then what is going on?

    Historical fact is Saudi officials and diplomants and Pakistan ISI generals send money to the hijackers. If you want to believe this was just some operation planned out in a remote cave believe it, i don't.

    I seen enough available information to know the CIA had enough intelligence to stop the hijackers before the boarded the planes. There still no confession from the CIA why they kept relevant information from the FBI. It is the FBI job to catch terrorists who came to America to carry out terrorist attacks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    It is absolutely not ignored.



    Thats all we know is it?

    Thats all you know it seems. Or want to know. Everyone else knows a lot more.

    I'm not going to take the time to give you a Bin Laden bio. Why don't you read a book about him? Or even his wiki page.

    Also if you think Al-Qaeda "emerged out of nowhere" you.... well.... thats just embarrassing, posting that on a public forum.

    I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.

    Ive read Richard Clarkes book. Its excellent. At no point does he suggest 9/11 was organised by anyone but Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. And at no point does he suggest it was an inside job. He lays the blame at the Bush administrations obsession with Iraq and general complacency.

    He 100% believes it was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Like you say, "not some low level guy".

    So, are you saying that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, who sat on the United States National Security Council and worked in the State Department in the 80s during the formation of Al-Qaeda is a liar?

    Have you read his book?

    Tell us again about how you look at the evidence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    If you want to believe this was just some operation planned out in a remote cave believe it, i don't.

    The people who planned this had connections and money, you don't seem to know much about it
    It is the FBI job to catch terrorists who came to America to carry out terrorist attacks.

    As we know, terrorist attacks happen. Psychologists have written article after article demonstrating that conspiracy/paranoid minded people have a problem grasping this because in their minds everything is "controlled", they can't fathom how these grande events can be missed therefore they assume conspiracy

    The subsequent FBI investigation was the largest in it's history - if you feel you know more than them from reading conspiracy sites, fine


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I look at the evidence unlike you. Richard Clarke was a senior politician at the White House and even his on the record saying the CIA restricted all access to material about the hijackers pre 9/11. They even stopped the flow information about their arrival on planes coming into the the United States. Richard Clarke was not some low level guy he was head of Terrorism ( he would have had the need to know access) He said the top brass at the CIA are the only people who could have stopped this flow of information to him and he never got answer as to why. He even said George Tenet the Head of the CIA back then lied under oath, about what he knew about the hijackers pre 9/11.

    Yeah and Richard Clarke stated that he suspects the CIA wanted to get one of the men "onside", to get a mole. But that he suspects it didn't happen, and the men slipped through their fingers, and the attacks later happened

    There are always questions of failures in the CIA/FBI after a large attack like that. It doesn't mean there was some secret giant plot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The subsequent FBI investigation was the largest in it's history - if you feel you know more than them from reading conspiracy sites, fine

    Well apparently "all we know he fought for the CIA backed Mujahideen and was born rich" and Al-Qaeda "was not even entity till the mid 90s and emerged out of nowhere" despite historical fact showing the were an entity in 1988!

    But Cheerful Spring "look at the evidence unlike you"

    Astonishing stuff really. Posting that in a discussion.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah and Richard Clarke stated that he suspects the CIA wanted to get one of the men "onside", to get a mole. But that he suspects it didn't happen, and the men slipped through their fingers, and the attacks later happened

    There are always questions of failures in the CIA/FBI after a large attack like that. It doesn't mean there was some secret giant plot.

    Clarke absolutely admits that there were failures in the FBI and CIA. He admits his failures. Thats not even up for discussion. But as you say, that doesn't automatically mean conspiracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Ive read Richard Clarkes book. Its excellent. At no point does he suggest 9/11 was organised by anyone but Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. And at no point does he suggest it was an inside job. He lays the blame at the Bush administrations obsession with Iraq and general complacency.

    He 100% believes it was Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Like you say, no some low level guy.

    So, are you saying that the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism is a liar?

    Have you read his book?

    He is Washington politician, they don't consider the alternative, the attacks were a false flag.

    He's speculation was the CIA were trying to recruit some of the 9/11 hijackers as double agents when they arrived in America- no evidence this is true, and the top brass at the CIA kept this ongoing operation secret. This obviously means bin laden and Al Qeada were still involved if this is the theory youi believe is true.

    Richard Clarke is ignorning they may have kept him out of the loop so he would not hunt down the hijackers before they boarded the planes. If these guys are truly terrorists, and the CIA is tracking them, and their whereabouts to turn them, how in the hell then did they manage to boards planes on 9/11? They would have seen them with other terrorists and them taking flying lessons at flight schools?

    I just not buying the double agent excuse, personally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,658 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    He is Washington politician, they don't consider the alternative, the attacks were a false flag.

    Right. So the person that you were using as a reference to back up a claim of a conspiracy 30 minutes ago is suddenly not credible because you've been presented with facts about him.

    I see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    The Nal wrote: »
    Right. So the person that you were using as a reference to back up a claim of a conspiracy 30 minutes ago is suddenly not credible because you've been presented with facts about him.

    I see.

    Double agent info is speculation, by him. No way is that a fact :rolleyes:

    The CIA has never admitted to anything, and its criminal, they are not telling the American public- the reasons why the kept this information secret.

    The public has a right to know why the allowed these men to enter the United States and carry out 9/11.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not sure what this has to do with the BBC...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful, the problem you have with this event, is you keep using anything that isn't 100% black and white (to you) as some sort of springboard to some vast silly conspiracy

    Yup Clarke may be right, the CIA may have tried to "turn" one of the men, ****ed it up, lost track of them and they later carried out the attack, **** like that happens - it doesnt mean the FBI and CIA sat down in a hollowed out volcano and planned flying planes into buildings

    Yup there's still a bit of a grey area regarding how many in Saudi knew or potentially knew of the attacks, a suspicion that possibly other Saudi officials may have had knowledge, a third of the population works for the government over there, there have always be Wahhabi sympathies for groups like AQ from portions of the country - it doesn't mean the Saudi leadership, and Larry Silverstein, and the FBI, and Joe Biden sat down and planned the attacks

    The BBC reports something by mistake during fluid 24 news - it doesn't mean they had some secret contact in a bizarre inside job

    Some parts of the final NIST report may be highly complex, may be difficult to understand/grasp, may be ambiguous, may even be debatable - it doesn't invalidate the findings, it doesn't mean they are part of some immense secret coverup

    Whatever the event (911, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, NZ gun attack), conspiracy theorists put it under the microscope, and anything that doesn't make "sense" to them and their perceptions of how the world works becomes an "anomoly" that can only point towards a conspiracy. Which is coincidentally also their passion - finding conspiracies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Cheerful, the problem you have with this event, is you keep using anything that isn't 100% black and white (to you) as some sort of springboard to some vast silly conspiracy

    Yup Clarke may be right, the CIA may have tried to "turn" one of the men, ****ed it up, lost track of them and they later carried out the attack, **** like that happens - it doesnt mean the FBI and CIA sat down in a hollowed out volcano and planned flying planes into buildings

    Yup there's still a bit of a grey area regarding how many in Saudi knew or potentially knew of the attacks, a suspicion that possibly other Saudi officials may have had knowledge, a third of the population works for the government over there, there have always be Wahhabi sympathies for groups like AQ from portions of the country - it doesn't mean the Saudi leadership, and Larry Silverstein, and the FBI, and Joe Biden sat down and planned the attacks

    The BBC reports something by mistake during fluid 24 news - it doesn't mean they had some secret contact in a bizarre inside job

    Some parts of the final NIST report may be highly complex, may be difficult to understand/grasp, may be ambiguous, may even be debatable - it doesn't invalidate the findings, it doesn't mean they are part of some immense secret coverup

    Whatever the event (911, Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, NZ gun attack), conspiracy theorists put it under the microscope, and anything that doesn't make "sense" to them and their perceptions of how the world works becomes an "anomoly" that can only point towards a conspiracy. Which is coincidentally also their passion - finding conspiracies.

    This is complete nonsense. How would you lose track of them when they are not incognito? They were using their real names to rent cars, rent apartments, they even used credit cards with their supposedly real names. They even checked into hotels before 9/11 and signed the resigtsry with their real names. There not a chance in hell they could have lost track of them. Just a quick search of bank records you find their address.

    FBI would track these guys down in 24 hours, if given the info. They obviously were protected by the CIA, and in my view the attacks were allowed to go ahead. They're not there for anything else there plan was to carry out a terrorist attack. The CIA had all the info they needed before 9/11 to know who these guys are and what the plan was. Two of the Pentagon attackers were involved in the bombing of the Cole in Yemen in Oct 2000, so should have raised red flags immediately they should have got arrested when they landed on American soil.

    Not true. When hijackers are meeting diplomants and Saudi spies then it obvious there a part of the Saudi government backing them. How many of them were arrested for this (none i know of) and why did the Bush neocons ignore this and not list Saudi Arabia as a country in the axis of terror. Even Pakistan was left out. No Afgan or Iraq citizen hijacked planes on 9/11.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Still not related to the BBC


Advertisement