live msnbc poll: do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies?

DPrival78 · October 2006

chopitdown wrote:

In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.[42] The tape was broadcast on various news networks from December 13, 2001.

this is the bogus confession tape, featuring the 250 lb., right-handed, gold ring wearing osama. osama's lefty, probably weighs about 120 lbs, and being a devout muslim, he would never wear gold.

in an interview with a pakistani newspaper, bin laden again reportedly denied involvement. he's quoted as saying:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
http://www.unknownnews.org/OsamaInterview.html

these tapes and interviews are all questionable. the fact that the first one released as "the" confession video was a clear fake, makes me highly skeptical of any of the others put forth by the gov't or mainstream media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

something that is fairly interesting in that 2nd link is on the section on the US involvement...there are ZERO sources listed as proof of their involvement. Just conjecture and overactive imaginations.

ok let's look at what is said in that 2nd link:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation working together with the United States Department of Justice identified 19 deceased hijackers. The suspects were identified within 72 hours. Few had made any attempt to disguise their names on flight and credit card records, and they were some of the few people of Arabic descent on the flights."

if that is true, then why were there no arab names on any of the passenger lists? http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

there are also links on that site to stories about some of the alleged hijackers still being alive. what's up with that?

"Within hours the FBI was able to determine their names and in many cases details such as dates of birth, known and/or possible residences, visa status, and specific identity of the suspected pilots.

how did they do that so quickly, especially if they had no idea that the attacks were coming? if they were in fact able to positively ID these people so quickly, why did FBI director robert mueller say that they haven't found one piece of paper, in all of the evidence collected, to link the alleged hijackers to 911?
http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/fbiadmits.html

jlew24asu · October 2006

DPrival78 wrote:

"As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

scary you believe this.

DPrival78 · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

"As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

scary you believe this.

any more scary than you believing that osama gained 150 lbs and changed into a righty to confess to 911?

chopitdown · October 2006

DPrival78 wrote:

these tapes and interviews are all questionable. the fact that the first one released as "the" confession video was a clear fake, makes me highly skeptical of any of the others put forth by the gov't or mainstream media.

al jazeera put forth the confession tape in 04 or 05. Our gov't didn't put that one forth and I figured that the al jazeera source would help you in coming to terms with it b/c it wasn't from america.

DPrival78 · October 2006

chopitdown wrote:

al jazeera put forth the confession tape in 04 or 05. Our gov't didn't put that one forth and I figured that the al jazeera source would help you in coming to terms with it b/c it wasn't from america.

i don't trust al-jazeera anymore than i trust fox news. but at least their osama looks a little better than fat-righty osama put out by our gov't. i'll give them that.

soulsinging · October 2006

DPrival78 wrote:

i don't trust al-jazeera anymore than i trust fox news. but at least their osama looks a little better than fat-righty osama put out by our gov't. i'll give them that.

so you're saying osama is really just a standup guy and a pacifist? if so, why has he been hiding for the last 20 years... since even before we suspected he was a terrorist.

im sorry, but when ive got a videotaped confession that's solid evidence to me. unless you've got a videotape of bush saying he did it, im going to take a confession over a bunch of circumstiantial bullshit any day.

this is the real world and al-quaeda, not a mission impossible movie where you can just put on a mask and become someone else... voila!

brain of c · October 2006

i believe in cigarettes and alcohol.

DPrival78 · October 2006

soulsinging wrote:

so you're saying osama is really just a standup guy and a pacifist? if so, why has he been hiding for the last 20 years... since even before we suspected he was a terrorist.

i'm not saying that at all. i'm saying that the person who the gov't and media claimed to be osama in that first tape was not osama. why would they show us a fake tape? to try to get us to believe something that isn't true? maybe..

and these tapes, phony or not, are low on the list of 911 anomalies anyway.

Jeanwah · October 2006

So what exactly are you saying, DPrival? You're defending binLaden to death, so there's something else you're not telling us. Like, who do you think is behind 9/11? What's your theory on it all? Because reading nothing but defensiveness for the guy who was pretty much the head of the Taliban doesn't solve this equation. I don't know what your religion is, does this have everything to do with this? Just curious.

DPrival78 · October 2006

Jeanwah wrote:

So what exactly are you saying, DPrival? You're defending binLaden to death, so there's something else you're not telling us. Like, who do you think is behind 9/11? What's your theory on it all? Because reading nothing but defensiveness for the guy who was pretty much the head of the Taliban doesn't solve this equation. I don't know what your religion is, does this have everything to do with this? Just curious.

i don't mean to come off as defending bin laden - i have no love for the man at all. i'm attacking the tapes because i think that they are bogus, and are just being used by the gov't to push their story of "osama did it'.

originally i asked what hard evidence are people leaning on to back up their belief in the gov't's version of what happened on 9/11. the confession tapes were brought up. i am of the belief that the tapes, most especially the first tape passed off as a confession, are not genuine. in that first tape, the man purported to be bin laden looks nothing like him - he's much, much heavier than we've ever seen him, he's seen writing with his right hand (the fbi's website will tell you that he's left-handed), and he's wearing a gold ring, which is something a devout muslim would not do. there was also a story about how german intelligence called the u.s.' translation of the tape completely inaccurate. those things, particularly the problems with the physical appearance, lead me to believe that the tapes are phony propaganda, used to sell a story that isn't true.

the problem with the tapes is only one thing that have me thinking that the gov't has completely lied to us about 9/11. there are just so many oddities with what went on that i believe that the factions of the u.s. gov't had to be involved in carrying it out. which is why i asked the question, what hard evidence are people leaning on to believe the official story. the tapes were brought up, so i brought some problems with them. i'm still interested in hearing what else people have to say.

believe me, i would love to be proven wrong about this, but whenever someone brings up something "official", it seems to be full of holes.

SweetHarmonics · October 2006

Osama has a sweet setup in that cave for sure, a production studio that rivals Nightline.

Jeanwah · October 2006

DPrival78 wrote:

i'm attacking the tapes because i think that they are bogus, and are just being used by the gov't to push their story of "osama did it'.

If this is true however, don't ya think that the gov't would set it up so they would catch him, so they could toot their own horn? I mean, this isn't necessarily working for 'ol George, and his ratings are the lowest of any president in a really long time. I'm not sure the tapes are legit, I for one believe that all media is controlled by the gov't (as far as Al-jazeera though, I have no idea). BUT, I think that if 9/11 was pain-stakingly planned via conspiracy theory, I think it would be been better planned out. The Bush clan loves the Saudis, and flew them out of the country just after 9/11, when no other flights were allowed at all. To me, it's like "special favors to friends when things go wrong".

DPrival78 · October 2006

Jeanwah wrote:

If this is true however, don't ya think that the gov't would set it up so they would catch him, so they could toot their own horn? I mean, this isn't necessarily working for 'ol George, and his ratings are the lowest of any president in a really long time.

actually, osama seems to be more useful while he's still "on the loose". it gives the administration something to wave around at the public when they need a distraction, or if they need to re-scare us in order to get support for things like the patriot act, wire-tapping, torture, war, etc. who knows, they may have osama already, saving that news for when they need it most. are maybe he's dead. who really knows? he's basically the emmanuel goldstein of the u.s. government - for those of you familiar with 1984. and i believe thats about all he has to do with 9/11.

watch this clip from 'loose change' a good doc. about 911. this is a short clip discussing the confession video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk519bkcLjg

enharmonic · October 2006

I think that what DPrival78 is saying, is that if Bush et al want to hang 9/11 on Osama Bin Ladin (and I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be responsible), that they should at least make an effort to present false information that at least looks real.

Just like they posted the names of all of the hijackers...only to have a number of them show up quite alive.

Al Queda might be 100% responsible, kids...but why lie about it, and show phony tapes...or publish and then stick to a list of hijackers once you know that the list is wrong?

Something seriously stinks...and I'm not talking about the blind loyalty. It's one thing to be patriotic and love one's country. It's another thing entirely to not scrutinize information that has been proven to be incorrect or otherwise intentionally misleading...especially when it becomes justification for war.

BTW...civilian death toll...well over 10:1 in favor of America since military operations began.

So tell me...who are the terrorists again? The only guy who has killed more innocent civilains in Iraq is on trial for it.

OutOfBreath · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

of course the media told me. there are several of them and they all have said the same story. are they ALL lying? I havent had the pleasure of touring osama's cave myself, so if they said thats where they were, then I wil give them the benefit of the doubt. granted im not calling this viedo a smoking gun of proof, but I take it for whats its worth.

Not that I'm siding with the conspiracy folks, but I must comment this. That the media outlets tell the same story does not mean that it is not a lie. when you consider how many of them get their news from the same sources. And the newspeople dont lie knowingly, but if they are served a lie they think is truth, they all essentially lie.

I'm saying that a united press aren't necessarily giving you the truth, even if they agree among themselves. and I will share the scepticism of interpretation of a movie clip without sound when lip readers can't make it out. You dont know what it's about. Period. And neither does the press. But it is spun and framed in such a way as to generate headlines. "Laughing 9/11 hi-jackers" sell more papers than "tape found of some people, and we dont know what they're saying, but pretty sure they're terrorists".

So these tapes are at best inconclusive. Even if the people were the hi-jackers to be, what relevance is a film of them horsing around in front of camera years before 9/11? The implied sensationalist angle is "terrorist killers, and laughing about it", when the tapes supports little of it.

A little scepticism is usually not a bad idea.

Peace
Dan

jlew24asu · October 2006

OutOfBreath wrote:

Not that I'm siding with the conspiracy folks, but I must comment this. That the media outlets tell the same story does not mean that it is not a lie. when you consider how many of them get their news from the same sources. And the newspeople dont lie knowingly, but if they are served a lie they think is truth, they all essentially lie.

I'm saying that a united press aren't necessarily giving you the truth, even if they agree among themselves. and I will share the scepticism of interpretation of a movie clip without sound when lip readers can't make it out. You dont know what it's about. Period. And neither does the press. But it is spun and framed in such a way as to generate headlines. "Laughing 9/11 hi-jackers" sell more papers than "tape found of some people, and we dont know what they're saying, but pretty sure they're terrorists".

So these tapes are at best inconclusive. Even if the people were the hi-jackers to be, what relevance is a film of them horsing around in front of camera years before 9/11? The implied sensationalist angle is "terrorist killers, and laughing about it", when the tapes supports little of it.

A little scepticism is usually not a bad idea.

Peace
Dan

like I said, i'm not claiming this to be a smoking gun. this tape shows mohammad atta and Ziad Jarrah at a training camp in afgahistan. why else were they there? just stopping by to say morning prayers? I dont think so. and since when is it years before 9/11? video was shown as jan 2000. thats 13 months before the attacks.

OutOfBreath · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

like I said, i'm not claiming this to be a smoking gun. this tape shows mohammad atta and Ziad Jarrah at a training camp in afgahistan. why else were they there? just stopping by to say morning prayers? I dont think so. and since when is it years before 9/11? video was shown as jan 2000. thats 13 months before the attacks.

Alright then, a year before then, lose the s. I'm not sure what the point of the video is. Showing that there were some guys being trained in camps? We pretty much know there were. But the angle I have read is the one I was half-mocking, about "laughing terrorists" and linked up to the 9/11 tragedy, when the tape seems to have little relevancy to it, other than showing 2 hi-jackers-to-be fooling around with a cam a long time ahead. I dont see what this proves or disproves or what the excitement is about. Other than newspapers making some extra bucks on being allowed to put 9/11 on another headline.

My response was primarily aimed at your "well they can't all be lying" comment, to which I maintain "sure they can". And without being a conspiracy nut.

Maybe I missed something about it. What is the clip supposedly about, and why is it frontpage news? Other than the opportunity to cash in again om 9/11 stuff of course.

Peace
Dan

jlew24asu · October 2006

OutOfBreath wrote:

Alright then, a year before then, lose the s. I'm not sure what the point of the video is. Showing that there were some guys being trained in camps? We pretty much know there were. But the angle I have read is the one I was half-mocking, about "laughing terrorists" and linked up to the 9/11 tragedy, when the tape seems to have little relevancy to it, other than showing 2 hi-jackers-to-be fooling around with a cam a long time ahead. I dont see what this proves or disproves or what the excitement is about. Other than newspapers making some extra bucks on being allowed to put 9/11 on another headline.

Peace
Dan

the point of the video? "It is the first time that a videotape has appeared of Mohammed Atta — who flew an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center — at a training camp in Afghanistan. It fills in a significant gap in the timing of the build-up to the attacks on the United States. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711389/posts

some people here believe he wasnt even involved. they will tell you the planes were flown by remote control into the buildings.

and I see your point to "all of them lying". I, by no means, trust everything the main stream media says. I do trust them however over some wacky website made from one person and a few sources. i.e 911research .net. I have more trust in the media and the government then most people do. doesnt mean I wont question them however

ledvedderman · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

"As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

scary you believe this.

It's almost as scary as Bush being such a devout Christian, yet waging illegal wars and wiping his ass with our constitution

OutOfBreath · October 2006

jlew24asu wrote:

the point of the video? It is the first time that a videotape has appeared of Mohammed Atta — who flew an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center — at a training camp in Afghanistan. It fills in a significant gap in the timing of the build-up to the attacks on the United States.

some people here believe he wasnt even involved. they will tell you the planes were flown by remote control into the buildings.

Not that I've seen the tapes (dont see much point without audio), but okay, they may support that if the man is identifiably Atta. Still pretty weak evidence though. If the audio was included with them talking about flying into the towers or whatever, you would have more of a case. As it is, mute shots of some guys believed to be the hi-jackers somewhere in a cave doesn't say too much one way or the other. Other than throwing at the conspiracy-mob who deny the hijackers' involvement. And, as I said, pretty weak even for that. I also thought all I read about it, was a bit much for an audio-less shot, and you are lead to interpret the shots in a certain way at once by the headlines and speculations.

That being said, the shots may well be of 2 of them talking about how they shall die gloriously and kill alot of westerners. But we dont know that, if even lipreaders make out nothing.

and I see your point to "all of them lying". I, by no means, trust everything the main stream media says. I do trust them however over some wacky website made from one person and a few sources. i.e 911research .net. I have more trust in the media and the government then most people do. doesnt mean I wont question them however

Oh, I dont trust any wacky web-site either at face value. And I trust the media to report what they do in certain predictable ways. Like a tabloid I usually skim over evry day. If exercise helps against certain ills, you can be certain the headline is "sex keeps you healthy" since sex can be counted as exercise. It's pathetic. And anything involving muslims, the middle east or what have you, you can be certain of over-exposure. you can rely on the media to sensationalize, and you can rely on governments to keep stories slanted the way they want for the most part.

But I do trust my government some part along the way, and trust the media to report what they are told from their sources. Doesn't mean you get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think the main thing about this video, is for media outlets to make a couple of extra bucks from being able to sensationalize something related to 9/11. The tape is probably valid enough, but it doesn't really say anything, so I dont think it convinces anyone of anything new.

Peace
Dan

live msnbc poll: do you believe in 9/11 conspiracies?

Comments

Categories