Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

[Toro]

DUBAI (AFP) - - Osama bin Laden urged Europeans to break ranks with the United States and quit Afghanistan, while stressing he alone was behind the 9/11 attacks, in a tape attributed to him on Al-Jazeera television on Thursday.

The United States "insisted on invading" Afghanistan even though it knew that the Afghans were not behind the 2001 attacks, and "Europe walked behind it," the voice purported to be that of the Al-Qaeda chief said in a "message to the European peoples."

"It would be better for you if you (restrained) your politicians who flock to the White House and worked actively to end the wrong done to the oppressed," he said in the audiotape.

"I am responsible" for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the speaker said.

Qatar-based Al-Jazeera aired a head shot of a smiling bin Laden wearing a white headdress of the type used by Muslim fundamentalist clerics.

"The truth, as I said before, is that the Manhattan events were in retaliation for the killing of our kinfolk in Palestine and Lebanon by the US-Israeli alliance and that I am responsible for them," the voice said.

"I affirm that the Afghans -- government and people -- had no knowledge whatsoever of these events and America knows that," since it captured and interrogated some ministers from the Islamist militant Taliban movement, which was ousted from power by a 2001 US invasion.http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071129/tts-qaeda-binladen-europe-afghanistan-un-a9aa023.html

[T.A.M.]

Heh Toro.

I think it's been covered here recently...do a search for it to find others posts, or perhaps other will post here on it.

TAM:)

[Toro]

Oops, sorry. I saw the byline was today and I didn't see any thread topics.

Lock it if its been covered.

[Unsecured Coins]

Locke, delete and BAN! *Howard Dean Scream*

[StickMan2008]

The bin laden acceptance is strange.

Because hours after 9/11 on BBC, head of Afghanistan said that Bin laden was not allowed to use the asylum of Afghanistan for refuge.

Now allegedly, and I use allegedly because I cannot confirm this, but allegedly there was another story where bin laden was translated as saying he did not partake in the attacks. But I'll have to look further


THe most interesting this is in that video that is supposedly his admission tape, he sets the initial theory of the planes by supposedly saying that he expected the jet fuel to melt the steel.

Bin laden the structural engineer lol

Kind of like the witness on the street who gave us the science lesson

[kookbreaker]

The bin laden acceptance is strange.

Because hours after 9/11 on BBC, head of Afghanistan said that Bin laden was not allowed to use the asylum of Afghanistan for refuge.


The Taliban said lots of things while trying to avoid the fallout for keeping Bin Laden around for giggles. They lied a lot. Remember when they lost their homewor...errr Bin Laden?


Now allegedly, and I use allegedly because I cannot confirm this, but allegedly there was another story where bin laden was translated as saying he did not partake in the attacks. But I'll have to look further


The claim was rather odd. Basicly some Arab journalists asked for an interview of Bin Laden, and the Taliban said they'd bring his questions to him. Lo and behold the Taliban reps came back with answers from Bin Laden saying he was not responsible. Then suddenly the Taliban couldn't find Bin Laden when the US said they would not face action if they turned him over.


THe most interesting this is in that video that is supposedly his admission tape, he sets the initial theory of the planes by supposedly saying that he expected the jet fuel to melt the steel.

Bin laden the structural engineer lol

Kind of like the witness on the street who gave us the science lesson

While 'melted' is not 100% scientificsly accuracte, it is not entirely wrong in usage. Have you ever left a chocolate bar in a car on a hot summer day? Well, when you get back to it, do you refer to it as 'having been heated to a less structurally sound state'? Or do you say that your chocolate bar 'melted'?

Because guess what...it wasn't melted!

[T.A.M.]

Well if OBL wasn't in on it, than this guy must be for falsely implying it was likely OBL, on September 11th, 2001, no less...


Chris Yates, an aviation expert at Jane's Transport in London. "It takes a logistics operation from the terror group involved that is second to none. Only a very small handful of terror groups is on that list. ... I would name at the top of the list Osama bin Laden."

http://www.september11archive.com/viewer.aspx?img=8146433&search=world

TAM:)

[StickMan2008]

Well if OBL wasn't in on it, than this guy must be for falsely implying it was likely OBL, on September 11th, 2001, no less...



http://www.september11archive.com/viewer.aspx?img=8146433&search=world

TAM:)

And former heads of entire countries have said that it would have taken US involvement.

So that quote is nothing but hearsay

[Drudgewire]

And former heads of entire countries have said that it would have taken US involvement.

So that quote is nothing but hearsay
Yeah except unlike the US, Bin Laden himself has sort of backed up that account.

[StickMan2008]

Yeah except unlike the US, Bin Laden himself has sort of backed up that account.

Then why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence to link him to the attacks?

Must be as valid as the hard evidence we claimed we were going to release to connect Saddam to WMDS

[Drudgewire]

Then why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence to link him to the attacks?

Must be as valid as the hard evidence we claimed we were going to release to connect Saddam to WMDS
Yes, that's all a confession supported by mountains of real evidence with nothing but supposition and fakery to dispute it is.

Can you take a picture of the reality you live in? I bet it's a lot more fun than this boring real one. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/haw.gif

[stateofgrace]

Then why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence to link him to the attacks?

Must be as valid as the hard evidence we claimed we were going to release to connect Saddam to WMDS

Maybe the FBI forgot to tell these guys


MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm

[PhantomWolf]

The bin laden acceptance is strange.

Not really, it's only about the 7th time he's said it now, at least the third this year.

Because hours after 9/11 on BBC, head of Afghanistan said that Bin laden was not allowed to use the asylum of Afghanistan for refuge.

Now allegedly, and I use allegedly because I cannot confirm this, but allegedly there was another story where bin laden was translated as saying he did not partake in the attacks. But I'll have to look further

I don't know if it was hours, but yes the Tailban leader did say that he had told Bin Laden he wasn't allowed to do that sort of thing, and Bin Laden did initially deny it, of course that was when the US was posed to drop a nuke on whoever did it, if you thought that admiting it would land a 50 megatonne tipped ICBM in your backyard would you admit to something you did?

THe most interesting this is in that video that is supposedly his admission tape, he sets the initial theory of the planes by supposedly saying that he expected the jet fuel to melt the steel.

Bin laden the structural engineer lol

Kind of like the witness on the street who gave us the science lesson

Sorry he never said that at all. He actually stated that he was surprised when the buildings came down because while he expected quite a bit of damage he didn't think that they would be destroyed.

Bin Laden is NOT a Structual Engineer. He may have a Civil Engineering degree, though there are conflicting reports on whether he completed the course (and what degree it is if he did, other sources claim it was in Public Administration). His main work seems to have been in minor building construction and roading so he would seem to have some knowledge in that area, but building a road or a one to two storey building is rather different to knowing anything about how a skyscrapper will react to having a plane crashed into it.

[T.A.M.]

And former heads of entire countries have said that it would have taken US involvement.

So that quote is nothing but hearsay

Did you even read the article?


"This is perhaps the most audacious terrorist attack that's ever
taken place in the world," said Chris Yates, an aviation expert at
Jane's Transport in London. "It takes a logistics operation from the
terror group involved that is second to none. Only a very small handful
of terror groups is on that list. ... I would name at the top of the
list Osama bin Laden."

http://www.september11archive.com/viewer.aspx?img=8146433&search=world

My point is that all I ever hear truthers complain about, is that the finger was pointed at OBL way to early, and that those that did were therefore in on the "inside job", throwing it out there so that it was accepted as true. This guy said it on the very day of SEPTEMBER 11th, so I am now asking you, WAS THIS GUY PART OF THE COVER UP?

Simple question.

TAM:)

[Toro]

Then why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence to link him to the attacks?

Who says they don't have hard evidence?

What they have not done is pursued it as a criminal case. There's no point. The US government has determined what he did was an act of war. Therefore, it is under the command of the military, not the justice department. Was Hitler wanted by the FBI? Was Hirohito? Was Ho Chi Minh?

The standard is also higher in a criminal court than in a military one. So there is no reason for the US government to pursue the matter in a civilian court.

[tomwaits]

Then why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence to link him to the attacks?

Last I checked, the FBI is a domestic intelligence agency. Are you suggesting that OBL is in the US?

[Undesired Walrus]

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Water is wet?

[PhantomWolf]

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

The Pope admits to being a Catholic.

[StickMan2008]

Did you even read the article?



http://www.september11archive.com/viewer.aspx?img=8146433&search=world

My point is that all I ever hear truthers complain about, is that the finger was pointed at OBL way to early, and that those that did were therefore in on the "inside job", throwing it out there so that it was accepted as true. This guy said it on the very day of SEPTEMBER 11th, so I am now asking you, WAS THIS GUY PART OF THE COVER UP?

Simple question.

TAM:)

I found it more amusing that minutes within the 2nd strike news reporters had the credentials so put the blame on OBL and a witness on the street gave us the NIST report before it even came out


And like I said, many disagree.

Gen. Leonid Ivashov, chief of staff of the Russian armed forces, said: "Only secret services and their current chiefs -- or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations -- have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. ... Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the Sept. 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."

[AZCat]

I found it more amusing that minutes within the 2nd strike news reporters had the credentials so put the blame on OBL and a witness on the street gave us the NIST report before it even came out

Oh - a "witness on the street" managed to fit 10,000 pages worth of extensive investigation into a news report on 9/11/01? That's news to me!

[StickMan2008]

Oh - a "witness on the street" managed to fit 10,000 pages worth of extensive investigation into a news report on 9/11/01? That's news to me!

That witness in a nutshell explained what became the official reasoning why the towers collapsed

And he used the word "OBVIOUSLY"

[AZCat]

That witness in a nutshell explained what became the official reasoning why the towers collapsed

And he used the word "OBVIOUSLY"

He did? That's news to me.

See, I happen to know that the NIST actually investigated the collapse of the towers in-depth, and consider your cavalier comparison to be laughable. I myself talked about the collapse with a number of my engineering buddies in the days that followed, and none of us are stupid enough to compare our table talk to the work done by the hundreds of people involved in the NIST investigation. We may have also found certain things about the collapses to be "obvious", but are smart enough to realize that whatever we concluded was superceded by the far superior NIST report.

[StickMan2008]

He did? That's news to me.

See, I happen to know that the NIST actually investigated the collapse of the towers in-depth, and consider your cavalier comparison to be laughable. I myself talked about the collapse with a number of my engineering buddies in the days that followed, and none of us are stupid enough to compare our table talk to the work done by the hundreds of people involved in the NIST investigation. We may have also found certain things about the collapses to be "obvious", but are smart enough to realize that whatever we concluded was superceded by the far superior NIST report.

They wasted their time and money because that guy solved it just on the spot.

And to him it was very obvious what happened despite the unprecedented occurence

[AZCat]

They wasted their time and money because that guy solved it just on the spot.

And to him it was very obvious what happened despite the unprecedented occurence

And in one post you prove your horrendous ignorance of the whole purpose of the NIST investigation. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.

[StickMan2008]

And in one post you prove your horrendous ignorance of the whole purpose of the NIST investigation. Thanks for confirming what I already suspected.

The purpose?

Obviously it was intended to fool, errr I mean inform the public about what really happened with the most mysterious event in the history of modern architecture

[AZCat]

The purpose?

Obviously it was intended to fool, errr I mean inform the public about what really happened with the most mysterious event in the history of modern architecture

If you think that was "the most mysterious event in the history of modern architecture", then you haven't ever taken an engineering class. The most common example I saw (and this has been confirmed by others) of an inexplicable phenomenon was the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge). The WTC tower collapses, by comparison, were not very mysterious.

And you're still mistaken about the purpose of the investigation. Really - if you're going to continue to criticize it, it might be wise to at least read the main body of the report. Then you won't have to spend so much time backpedaling from idiotic statements.

[tomwaits]

Don't worry, guys. Stickman is a disinfo agent. That means we can completely discount everything he says. Or do you you deny that charge, Stickman?

[LashL]

I found it more amusing that minutes within the 2nd strike news reporters had the credentials so put the blame on OBL and a witness on the street gave us the NIST report before it even came out

What exactly is it that you find so "amusing"? Please elaborate.

Truthers, such as yourself, seem to never tire of cherry picking, making crap up out of whole cloth, and spewing the same old, long debunked, unsupported, ridiculous crap that they've culled from the internet over the past few years.

The names and socks may change but truther stories never seem to, no matter how many times their stories have been proven wrong. It's as though they think that theirs is the first time ever, ever, that their parroted nonsense has ever been presented here, even though the same old crap has been presented (and duly deconstructed and annihilated) many times before.

So, what makes you different? What do you have to say that hasn't been addressed and refuted many times before?

The multiple socks and the cut & paste blather have long grown wearisome, and nobody here is going to buy into nonsensical, unsupported posts such as those you have proffered to date. Nobody here is going to be fooled by such unsupported nonsense. You're at the wrong place if you think that you will convince anyone here of anything without facts and evidence in support of your assertions, and you have failed to provide any facts or evidence in support of your assertions so far.


So? What are you waiting for? It's a "put up or shut up" situation.

[StickMan2008]

If you think that was "the most mysterious event in the history of modern architecture", then you haven't ever taken an engineering class. The most common example I saw (and this has been confirmed by others) of an inexplicable phenomenon was the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge). The WTC tower collapses, by comparison, were not very mysterious.

And you're still mistaken about the purpose of the investigation. Really - if you're going to continue to criticize it, it might be wise to at least read the main body of the report. Then you won't have to spend so much time backpedaling from idiotic statements.

So a wobbling bridge built in the early 1900s is more mysterious that the destruction of 3 modern day sky scrapers all in the same complex on the same day?

[AZCat]

So a wobbling bridge built in the early 1900s is more mysterious that the destruction of 3 modern day sky scrapers all in the same complex on the same day?

Yes.

Not much mysterious about the WTC collapses - planes hit buildings, buildings catch on fire and burn, buildings fall down (your number of buildings is incorrect, by the way).

The "wobbling" bridge (built in 1940 - hardly the "early 1900s"), on the other hand, exposed the complexity of coupled dynamic systems and forced bridge designers to completely revamp their methods of analysis.

[StickMan2008]

Yes.

Not much mysterious about the WTC collapses - planes hit buildings, buildings catch on fire and burn, buildings fall down (your number of buildings is incorrect, by the way).

The "wobbling" bridge (built in 1940 - hardly the "early 1900s"), on the other hand, exposed the complexity of coupled dynamic systems and forced bridge designers to completely revamp their methods of analysis.

So the structural integrity of a bridge built in the 1940s compares to one of buildings compassed with 100,000 tons of steel and concrete?

And the destruction compares to the totality of that experienced on 9/11 that is still not even explained by an investigation of any kind?


Brilliant JREF logic

[AZCat]

So the structural integrity of a bridge built in the 1940s compares to one of buildings compassed with 100,000 tons of steel and concrete?

And the destruction compares to the totality of that experienced on 9/11 that is still not even explained by an investigation of any kind?


Brilliant JREF logic

Unless your purpose is to obfuscate, it is recommended that you actually read the post to which you are responding, and take care to understand its meaning. Please try this, and then get back to me when we can have a conversation that has some basis in reality.

[Dr Adequate]

So a wobbling bridge built in the early 1900s is more mysterious that the destruction of 3 modern day sky scrapers all in the same complex on the same day? Ah yes, Twoofer probability theory.

They all fell down on the same day. Are you telling me that that was a coincidence, huh, huh?

:dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

So the structural integrity of a bridge built in the 1940s compares to one of buildings compassed with 100,000 tons of steel and concrete?

And the destruction compares to the totality of that experienced on 9/11 that is still not even explained by an investigation of any kind?


Brilliant JREF logic


The real mystery is how people such as yourself go around not realizing there was and is an investigation. Brilliant 9/11 cultist logic. It makes a lot more sense from earth, so i you ever come back here, you'll understand.

[T.A.M.]

The purpose?

Obviously it was intended to fool, errr I mean inform the public about what really happened with the most mysterious event in the history of modern architecture

So the structural integrity of a bridge built in the 1940s compares to one of buildings compassed with 100,000 tons of steel and concrete?

And the destruction compares to the totality of that experienced on 9/11 that is still not even explained by an investigation of any kind?


Brilliant JREF logic

And here my friend, is the truther coming out in you. Your cover as someone "just asking questions" is slipping, and the Woo underneath is showing itself.

TAM:)