Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

[metamars]

From Democratic Underground: Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6191095)

Edited on Fri Jul-31-09 08:02 AM by lukery
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds (http://123realchange.blogspot.com/) dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show (http://mikemalloy.com/), guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (http://www.bradblog.com/) (audio (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7253), partial transcript (http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2009/07/sibel-edmonds-on-mike-malloy.html)).

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.

[R.Mackey]

"Bombshell" apparently is Truth Movement for "unsubstantiated wild claim."

She provides no evidence, and there is no plausible way for her to have learned this information.

[~enigma~]

From Democratic Underground: Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6191095)
Are you posting this because you are hurt by the epic failure of NYCCAN and now realizing that you are a member of a cult that does nothing more than lie and con it's members out of money and you have wasted the last 8 years of your life that you will never get back?

[metamars]

From letsibeledmondsspeak.com (http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2009/07/sibel-edmonds-on-mike-malloy.html)

Sibel Edmonds: (interrupts) I have to jump in here and say that I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.

I know you are going to say 'Oh my God, we went there and bombed the medical factory in the 1990s during Clinton, we declared him Most Wanted' and what I'm telling you is, with those groups, we had operations in Central Asia, and that relationship - using them as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict - we used them all the way until September 11.

[BigAl]

From Democratic Underground: Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6191095)

And what evidence is produced that shows that everything we know abut ObL and what he as has done to attack the US and kill Americans since 1990 didn't happen?

[R.Mackey]

From letsibeledmondsspeak.com (http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2009/07/sibel-edmonds-on-mike-malloy.html)

Like I said, no evidence. Her claims are also completely naive.

A much better account of the actual relationship with bin Laden, including during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, can be had from CIA members with real access to intelligence, such as Michael Scheuer, rather than some random translator talking about things that happened while she was still in high school. As I have numerous times, I recommend Lawrence Wright's books on the subject, and unless you can show how he and his hundreds of interviewees got it totally wrong, Ms. Edmonds is not even faintly credible.

[metamars]

"Bombshell" apparently is Truth Movement for "unsubstantiated wild claim."

She provides no evidence

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?

and there is no plausible way for her to have learned this information.

Really! And how do you justify this statement? Have you read and listened to the classified material that she did? And do tell us, won't you, what your level of skill is in understanding Middle Eastern languages?

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... how long has Mike W's page on the bin Laden-CIA links myth been around for now? Couple of years, maybe?

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html


It is often said that bin Ladin was funded by the CIA. This is not true, and indeed it would have been impossible given the structure of funding that General Zia ul-Haq, who had taken power in Pakistan in 1977, had set up. A condition of Zia's cooperation with the American plan to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet's 'Vietnam' was that all American funding to the Afghan resistance had to be channeled through the Pakistani government, which effectively meant the Afghan bureau of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the military spy agency.

The American funding, which went exclusively to the Afghan mujahideen groups, not the Arab volunteers [bin Ladin's groups]...


... and


Fisk: ...what of the Arab mujahedin he took to Afghanistan - members of a guerilla army who were also encouraged and armed by the United States - and who were forgotten when that war was over?

bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_bin_ladin_in_sudan1996.htm

And if relations between the US and bin Laden were that cordial :rolleyes: back during the Soviet-Afghanistan war, well before America had troops in Saudi Arabia, what makes anyone think they got any better since then?

[beachnut]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?



Really! And how do you justify this statement? Have you read and listened to the classified material that she did? And do tell us, won't you, what your level of skill is in understanding Middle Eastern languages?
She is talking; which part of the meaning of gagged are you using?

When you get the proof present it; your hearsay and delusions are tiresome.

[DavidJames]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?Really? Really? The most gagged person in history "dropped a bombshell" on a radio show. You should consider thinking before you post.

[stateofgrace]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?


Just like UBL, right ?

So the reason he as kept quiet about this relationship is what, exactly ? Any reason for him not to have announced this working relationship to the entire planet?

What does he get for his silence?

[carlitos]

These free speech martyrs are pathetic. There is a website called "let Sibel Edmonds speak" and she's on a freaking radio show. Obviously, the world is "letting" her speak. That she chooses to speak with Mike Malloy, who is a nut, says a lot about her lack of judgement.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing.

For being the "most gagged woman in history" she sure seems to have a hard time shutting the @#$% up.

[R.Mackey]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?

In other words, you're relying on evidence that you never expect to actually see. Good luck with that.

Her "Gagging" and her actual case has to do with misconduct at her contracting firm. Which is plausible. The fact that she's later tried to keep herself public and bolster her story with increasingly idiotic and fascinating claims of stupendously huge conspiracies, for which she could possibly have no evidence, in my view damages whatever case she might have had. To use a loose example, if I accuse my employer of timecard fraud, and then when it fails to gain legal traction I start claiming they're also covering up alien invasions, it doesn't help me at all.

Really! And how do you justify this statement? Have you read and listened to the classified material that she did? And do tell us, won't you, what your level of skill is in understanding Middle Eastern languages?

Irrelevant. She worked as a translator, as a contractor to the FBI. For a few months. Assuming her claims regarding bin Laden are true, there is no way in the world she would be given such information, nor would she ever encounter it. She wasn't an analyst who needed the background, nor was she part of the CIA bin Laden station. For her to have received such information would be an incredible security leak.

Evidence or pack it in. We've been here before.

[dtugg]

It's been been eight years since 9/11. Why exactly did this liar wait so long to drop the "bombshell"?

Twoofers will believe anything.

[BigAl]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?


Really! And how do you justify this statement? Have you read and listened to the classified material that she did? And do tell us, won't you, what your level of skill is in understanding Middle Eastern languages?

She was and is censored and I want to hear what she has to say that stands up to proper scrutiny. She has to prove that she had access to communications that would support her assertions and they were in languages she had competency in. That's just the start.

Wiki says Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Persian, English and Azerbaijani. I suspect that much of the messages that involved ObL were in Urdu, Pashto and Arabic and that Turkish, Persian, English and Azerbaijani were irrelevant to support her so-far unsubstantiated claims.

[~enigma~]

She was hired after 9/11 and fired a few months later. Anybody think she is nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee?

ETA - This is a spectacular whimper from the TM following their epic failure that was seen around the world.

[Dave Rogers]

To use a loose example, if I accuse my employer of timecard fraud, and then when it fails to gain legal traction I start claiming they're also covering up alien invasions, it doesn't help me at all.

Except that your employer really is covering up alien invasions. Everybody knows that.

Dave

[timhau]

Just a hint, metamars: explosives. If you have a bombshell, that's what makes the difference between 'clunk' and 'kaboom'.

[R.Mackey]

I'd tell you more, but I'm being gagged! Buy my book! Watch for me on Oprah!

[ElMondoHummus]

Except that your employer really is covering up alien invasions. Everybody knows that.

Dave

AHA! I knew it! :mglook

[metamars]

Mother of God... how long has Mike W's page on the bin Laden-CIA links myth been around for now? Couple of years, maybe?

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html



Wow, that's really clever - NOT. I mean, who would ever think that the CIA would employ the ISI as a go-between? After all, it's not like the CIA ever uses locals, or people from nearby locales who can "blend" to do their bidding, right? Maybe only the military uses locals, like the wonderful graduates of the School of the Americas? Is this your belief?

... and


http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_bin_ladin_in_sudan1996.htm

And if relations between the US and bin Laden were that cordial :rolleyes: back during the Soviet-Afghanistan war, well before America had troops in Saudi Arabia, what makes anyone think they got any better since then?

Just one problem, here, kido. If Bin Laden and the US government were "intimately" involved, don't you think the US would let it be known to an asset that he should obscure his true affiliation? Actually, there's another problem. Didnt the CIA deliver stinger missiles to the Afghan jihadis? How could bin Laden "not see" this? And even if he didn't "personally see" the Stinger missiles, was this some sort of secret, even amongst the Afghan jiahadis? Do tell us, won't you, how you resolve this contradiction. Is bin Laden a liar, or is he stupid, or did he have the cooties so bad that other jihadis wouldn't tell him about the Stinger missiles?

And if he's a liar, why would I resolve any contradiction between him and Sibel Edmonds in his favor?

[carlitos]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing. Ah, but you already knew that, didn't you?
From her website, in addition to the recent Malloy interview:

Just A Citizen (Sibel's website)
NSWBC
Kill The Messenger
Hijacking of a Nation, Part 1
Hijacking of a Nation, Pt 2
Vanity Fair: Inconvenient Patriot
Chris Deliso interview, 8/05
Chris Deliso interview, 7/04
Scott Horton Interview 8/05

If I were 'gagged' like that, I'd fire my publicist.


Really! And how do you justify this statement? Have you read and listened to the classified material that she did? And do tell us, won't you, what your level of skill is in understanding Middle Eastern languages?
I understand that dudes from Saudi living in Afghanistan don't speak Azerbaijani, Turkish or English to each other.

[R.Mackey]

Yes or no question, metamars: Have you read The Looming Tower?

If yes, essay question: How do you square Ms. Edmonds's claim with those of Michael Scheuer and others? They are completely contradictory.

[~enigma~]

She was hired after 9/11 and fired a few months later. Anybody think she is nothing more than a disgruntled ex-employee?

ETA - This is a spectacular whimper from the TM following their epic failure that was seen around the world.
Did anybody see this? Why argue anything about Sibel whateverhernameis concerning anything about 9/11 when she didn't even work there on 9/11 and was employed by the FBI for 4 months?

[Quad4_72]

Actually, there's another problem. Didnt the CIA deliver stinger missiles to the Afghan jihadis? How could bin Laden "not see" this? And even if he didn't "personally see" the Stinger missiles, was this some sort of secret, even amongst the Afghan jiahadis? Do tell us, won't you, how you resolve this contradiction. Is bin Laden a liar, or is he stupid, or did he have the cooties so bad that other jihadis wouldn't tell him about the Stinger missiles?


Not sure what point you are trying to make here...

[~enigma~]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here...
No point in the thread whatsoever.

[metamars]

Yes or no question, metamars: Have you read The Looming Tower?

If yes, essay question: How do you square Ms. Edmonds's claim with those of Michael Scheuer and others? They are completely contradictory.

No

[MikeW]

One moment al Qaeda doesn't exist and bin Laden is a wronged and innocent man whose supposed denial of 9/11 responsibility can be taken at face value.

And the next, bin Laden's "worked for the US till 9/11" (although, ahem, that's not what Edmonds said), and has such a potent fighting force that it comes in handy for fighting enemies across Central Asia.

Ah well, I suppose when you're as desperate as the truthers then you'll grasp on to any straw. I expect they'll soon be telling us that this is hugely significant, and will change everything: the faithful need a little fake encouragement to help ensure the cash keeps rolling in.

[R.Mackey]

No

:rolleyes:

Then I strongly advise you to read the book, and to educate yourself on the subject you are allegedly so interested in.

Once you know the first thing about what you're talking about, I believe you will find yourself less easily duped.

Egad, yet another fail for the Truth Movement.

[Quad4_72]

No

So there is testimony completely contradictory to the loon you are supporting from a credible source and you aren't even going to bother looking it up? Why is that?

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow, that's really clever - NOT. I mean, who would ever think that the CIA would employ the ISI as a go-between? After all, it's not like the CIA ever uses locals, or people from nearby locales who can "blend" to do their bidding, right? Maybe only the military uses locals, like the wonderful graduates of the School of the Americas? Is this your belief?


... And Metamars gets the "Didn't pay a damn bit of attention to the information I was given because I've fooled myself into thinking I know what I'm talking about" award. Did you miss the part where the funding went to the Afghans, not the visiting Arabs? Did you also not click through and read the rest of the information there?


Badeeb recalled. "And we insist[ed] that the Americans will not get to that, get involved--especially in the beginning," in part because some of the Islamist mujahedin objected to direct contact with Western infidels...


Have you also bothered to read any history of bin Laden? Do you know that bin Laden's entry into terrorism was because he didn't need state sponsorship for his activities, since he proved to be amazingly adapt at raising funds on his own? Do you also know that, regardless of whatever his status may have been during the Afghan conflict, when the US convinced the Sudan to kick him out, they did so in a way that made him lose most of his fortune? So from that point on he harbored a definite, unrelenting, and fully vocalized, fully admitted hate for the US? Do you realize any of this?

No, of course not. Not if you continue to subsribe to a fantasy forwarded by someone providing zero evidence. Hint: Read Lawrence Wright's Looming Tower. Read Steven Coll's work. Just... just read something other than the truther sites you keep quoting. Fiction is no substitute for reality.

... and


Just one problem, here, kido. If Bin Laden and the US government were "intimately" involved, don't you think the US would let it be known to an asset that he should obscure his true affiliation? Actually, there's another problem. Didnt the CIA deliver stinger missiles to the Afghan jihadis? How could bin Laden "not see" this? And even if he didn't "personally see" the Stinger missiles, was this some sort of secret, even amongst the Afghan jiahadis? Do tell us, won't you, how you resolve this contradiction. Is bin Laden a liar, or is he stupid, or did he have the cooties so bad that other jihadis wouldn't tell him about the Stinger missiles?

And if he's a liar, why would I resolve any contradiction between him and Sibel Edmonds in his favor?

1. "Kido"?? From a mere mental child himself?
2. Obscuring his true affiliation: Evidence? I like to base what I know on information, not mere induction.
3. " Didnt the CIA deliver stinger missiles to the Afghan jihadis?" What's that supposed to prove? He did indeed try his best to mingle with the Mujahadeen; this doesn't provide even a smidgen of any link between him and the CIA. The Afgan mujahadeed had those.
4. If you want to talk about resolving contradictions, resolve the one between what you peddle - that bin Laden was in cahoots with the CIA - and that has no evidence to it beyond the unsupported claims of someone who's access to such information is never established to begin with - and what's known and provable, like the information Coll, Wright, Scheuer, Burke, and Bergen has provided. The truly glaring contradictions are between the claims you champion and reality. You have far more need to rectify contradictions than I do; you contradict known facts.

[~enigma~]

You guys do realize that arguing this with metmars is about as stupid as arguing Aquaman's knowledge of what UL did in 1964.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes or no question, metamars: Have you read The Looming Tower?


No

Why am I not surprised?

:rolleyes:

Then I strongly advise you to read the book, and to educate yourself on the subject you are allegedly so interested in.

Once you know the first thing about what you're talking about, I believe you will find yourself less easily duped.

Egad, yet another fail for the Truth Movement.

No kidding. We're supposed to take the unsubstantiated and unspecific claims of a person who worked for mere months at the FBI over the painstakingly collected and detailed observations by the authors I mentioned earlier: Steven Coll, Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen, etc. And in learning, analyzing, and citing what they've discovered, we're supposedly the ones who are in the dark here.

Sheesh. Again, Metamars: You need to read more than truther information. Start with those authors. You are sorely lacking in information, and you are making this painfully apparent with your posts here.

[16.5]

Wait, wait, WAIT!

I thought they were a bunch of incompetent cave dwellers??

Hey Twoofers, pick a god damn story and stick to it!

kthxbye

[~enigma~]

Wait, wait, WAIT!

I thought they were a bunch of incompetent cave dwellers??

Hey Twoofers, pick a god damn story and stick to it!

kthxbye
Apparently Sibel was fluent in cavemanese when she took her trip back into the past with her Delorean.

[boloboffin]

I don't see how she's saying anything different from what she's been saying. Where's the bombshell?

From the DU article:

As Sibel has previously described, and as she reiterates in this latest interview, this process involved using Turkey (with assistance from 'actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia') as a proxy, which in turn used Bin Laden and the Taliban and others as a proxy terrorist army.

Since she has previously described this alleged proxy usage of bin Laden, how is this in any way an actual bombshell?

[Blender Head]

I don't see how she's saying anything different from what she's been saying. Where's the bombshell?

From the DU article:



Since she has previously described this alleged proxy usage of bin Laden, how is this in any way an actual bombshell?

The same way every time a "paper" is written on the speed of the Towers' collapse is a "bombshell" revelation that's tear down the house of cards that is the 9/11 hoax.

[newton3376]

Can someone PLEASE tell why there are so many freaking truthers who know absolutely ZERO about the intelligence community but INSIST on talking about it because they hear some "ex-[insert some agency here]" talking or they read some declassified document?

All of a sudden they are some kind of Intel expert? What the heck is wrong with these people?

[newton3376]

You guys do realize that arguing this with metmars is about as stupid as arguing Aquaman's knowledge of what UL did in 1964.

Aquaman? Aren't there rumors of a movie with Aquaman?

When are they going to make a modern movie about the Flash? It's well past the time for that.....

[stateofgrace]

Can someone PLEASE tell why there are so many freaking truthers who know absolutely ZERO about the intelligence community but INSIST on talking about it because they hear some "ex-[insert some agency here]" talking or they read some declassified document?

All of a sudden they are some kind of Intel expert? What the heck is wrong with these people?

Didn't you know they are experts on all sorts of stuff, structural engineering, demolitions, black ops, foreign politics, aircraft crash investigations, you name it, they are experts on it. :rolleyes:

[boloboffin]

Can someone PLEASE tell why there are so many freaking truthers who know absolutely ZERO about the intelligence community but INSIST on talking about it because they hear some "ex-[insert some agency here]" talking or they read some declassified document?

All of a sudden they are some kind of Intel expert? What the heck is wrong with these people?

Welcome to the world of Deep Politics. If you thought reading the vibrations of chicken viscera was subjective, you've never met the gossamer sails that take to the oceans floated by the Deep Politics crew.

[~enigma~]

Aquaman? Aren't there rumors of a movie with Aquaman?

When are they going to make a modern movie about the Flash? It's well past the time for that.....
Aquaman = Waterboy = Pathological Liar = Courtroom Failure = Manager Of Water Testing Plant = Kevin Ryan

ETA - Forgot one, American Idiot

[newton3376]

Didn't you know they are experts on all sorts of stuff, structural engineering, demolitions, black ops, foreign politics, aircraft crash investigations, you name it, they are experts on it. :rolleyes:

It's just pathetic....

[newton3376]

Welcome to the world of Deep Politics. If you thought reading the vibrations of chicken viscera was subjective, you've never met the gossamer sails that take to the oceans floated by the Deep Politics crew.

That was a very unique way of wording it....

:newlol

[newton3376]

Aquaman = Waterboy = Pathological Liar = Courtroom Failure = Manager Of Water Testing Plant = Kevin Ryan

ETA - Forgot one, American Idiot

I know that Aquaman is often used to refer to UL fail Kevin Ryan...:newlol

But the name made me think of Aquaman and I have heard rumors of a movie...but I really want to see one about the Flash...so I got distracted off topic....not hard to do when dealing with the investigooglers of the "truth movement"....

[boloboffin]

And the thread at DU has been moved to the September 11th forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=259342&mesg_id=259342

The plaintive lamentations will commence any minute now.

[JoeyDonuts]

Ha ha.

I'd like to add Robert Baer's name to the list of authors who have a fairly decent idea of what the hell actually happened, and whose work refutes the words of people like Sibel Edmonds.

After all, if Sibel's scenario is true and Bin Laden was set up as a CIA proxy, Robert Baer would probably be the man that would have set that up.

He didn't.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Yeah, I'm sure the CIA was going to share operational details with a newly hired FBI translator who had a handful of low-level security clearances (compared to what the CIA normally has) . :rolleyes:

Mike Malloy will believe any conspiracy theory that comes down the road. He marks Art Bell look like a cynic.

[Myron Proudfoot]

And the thread at DU has been moved to the September 11th forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=259342&mesg_id=259342

The plaintive lamentations will commence any minute now.

Off to the Dungeon with ye!

[T.A.M.]

From Democratic Underground: Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6191095)

you lost me at "Sibel Edmonds".

I need not read further.

TAM:)

[dudalb]

I know that Aquaman is often used to refer to UL fail Kevin Ryan...:newlol

But the name made me think of Aquaman and I have heard rumors of a movie...but I really want to see one about the Flash...so I got distracted off topic....not hard to do when dealing with the investigooglers of the "truth movement"....


There is a Flash movie under development at Warners, but it is on the back burner while the front burner is occupied by the Green Lantern film and the Superman Reboot.
Jonah Hex looks great, though.The stills are impressive.

[FineWine]

From Democratic Underground: Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6191095)



So the unsilenceable chatterbox Sibel Edmonds proves at last to be nothing more than an agenda-driven liar.

[boloboffin]

So the unsilenceable chatterbox Sibel Edmonds proves at last to be nothing more than an agenda-driven liar.

I'm stealing "unsilenceable chatterbox".

[Björn Toulouse]

......Where's the bombshell?..........Since she has previously described this alleged proxy usage of bin Laden, how is this in any way an actual bombshell?


I guess I don't understand "bombshells" either. Wasn't this from a show (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7253)over 5 weeks ago? I thought bombshells created a lot of noise and a shock wave? Why is it just being talked about now? You can't say it's that NWO/MSM in cahoots thing because I'm sure some Truthers somewhere have heard about that show for some time now.

So - why now? What was the delay? Didn't it seem important enough to somebody before today?

[FineWine]

I'm stealing "unsilenceable chatterbox".


Whenever I hear some loon referring to the logorrheic Edmonds as "gagged," I do a spit-take and fall out of my chair.

[Senenmut]

Like I said, no evidence. Her claims are also completely naive.

A much better account of the actual relationship with bin Laden, including during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, can be had from CIA members with real access to intelligence, such as Michael Scheuer, rather than some random translator talking about things that happened while she was still in high school. As I have numerous times, I recommend Lawrence Wright's books on the subject, and unless you can show how he and his hundreds of interviewees got it totally wrong, Ms. Edmonds is not even faintly credible.

have any debunkers figured out where this came from yet? i know there is alot of controversy surrounding this "tim osman" thing. Michael Riconosciuto's name pops out at me in this letter considering the whole PROMIS software scandel. and ive glaced at the book gideons spies that talks about mossad having promis: http://books.google.com/books?id=1IeO8xtD86YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gideon%27s+spies#v=onepage&q=promis&f=false

i doubt any "twoofer" would go through the trouble and create something like this....
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/285444a7378dce5c60.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17093)

[FineWine]

have any debunkers figured out where this came from yet? i know there is alot of controversy surrounding this "tim osman" thing. Michael Riconosciuto's name pops out at me in this letter considering the whole PROMIS software scandel. and ive glaced at the book gideons spies that talks about mossad having promis: http://books.google.com/books?id=1IeO8xtD86YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gideon%27s+spies#v=onepage&q=promis&f=false

i doubt any "twoofer" would go through the trouble and create something like this....
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/285444a7378dce5c60.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17093)


Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

[stateofgrace]

Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

I guess the answer is no

http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

[ElMondoHummus]

Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

Also: http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

Gaaaah, S.O.G, you SOB!! Beat me to it!! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/123864877beae15535.gifCurses! CURSES!!!


;)

[stateofgrace]

Also: http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

Gaaaah, S.O.G, you SOB!! Beat me to it!! http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/123864877beae15535.gifCurses! CURSES!!!


;)

Must be a slow connection you guys have ;)

Five minutes on google here is all it takes.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Since she has previously described this alleged proxy usage of bin Laden, how is this in any way an actual bombshell?


Heh. metamars tells two lies1 in the subject of the thread. Is that a record?

-----
1. The first lie is that this is a "bombshell", as it's nothing new. The second lie is that Osama "worked for US", when the claim is actually that he was manipulated by proxy.

[ElMondoHummus]

Furthermore, even if the document were legitimate, what would it tell us? From Mike's page:


We’re uncertain about the witnesses to this meeting, then. The only document purporting to show that “Tim Osman” was bin Ladin is unsourced, as far as we can see. And even if we take the story as literally true, it doesn’t offer strong support for the common “bin Ladin was trained by/ funded by the CIA”. claims. In fact Gunderson’s account has him picked to meet Osman exactly because he didn’t work for a Government agency any more, therefore this story could be used to show there weren’t strong links between bin Ladin and the CIA at this time.

Given these issues, it’s hard to see how the Osman story can tell us very much on its own. More evidence is essential before we can begin to form a reliable picture about what, if anything, this means.


He's right.

[ElMondoHummus]

Must be a slow connection you guys have ;)

Five minutes on google here is all it takes.

Braggart :p.


;):D

[Senenmut]

Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.

[stateofgrace]

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.

So, it is unsourced? You have no idea where it came from?

Let me get this straight, you want me or somebody else to find the origin of a piece of paper, which you have offered up. Why would anybody do that for you? If you are so concerned why don't you do it?

if it bothers you so much and you think it is significant what, exactly, is stopping you from finding out where it came from ?

[FineWine]

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.

people around here usually know what CIT does or if 911 blogger puts out something new or jones....so on and so on. im trying to figure out if u guys know the source of this?

if you have read about the PROMIS scandel, michael Riconosciuto was the one that modifed the software. anyway, the story goes the mossad got it and by what the book gideon spies says, that is the case. they did aquire PROMIS.


Notice how you "truthers" get caught in silly lies. You pretend, unconvincingly, that you've already read the 9/11myths discussion. Yet, you post the garbled piece of paper that shows nothing in particular. What are you expecting? Osama has said repeatedly that he had no contacts with the Americans.

[Gravy]

Metamars, why don't you do us all a favor and list the idiocy you don't believe. We should be able to address that in a few minutes.

[progge]

Furthermore, even if the document were legitimate, what would it tell us? From Mike's page:



He's right.


Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul_in_crosshairs119.html) by American Free Press more than (http://web.archive.org/web/20080211174256/http://www.tedgunderson.com/Articles/US+Armed+and+Promoted+Terrorist.htm) one time (http://web.archive.org/web/20080122092109/http://tedgunderson.com/Articles/Feds+Knew+of+9-11+and+did+nothing.htm), but he is also a regular speaker (http://web.archive.org/web/20070508033642/http://www.americanfreepress.net/TBR_Conference_Report_2002.pdf) at AFP conferences (http://enationalist.com/portal/index/index.php?/Latest/newsflash-2.html), and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050829113804/http://www.americanfreepress.net/Issue_32_Master1_AFP_2002.pdf). This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser” (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Media_Kit_Ad_Sizes_New.pdf).

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[ElMondoHummus]

You know, I'm willing to actually believe that the "Osman" document is legitimate. It's just that my response to the info is still "so what?". One, single documented meeting? If the presumptions about the document are true? Even if we take it at face value, as Mike W. said, it actually bolsters the argument that CIA - bin Laden links were weak, not strong. And extrapolation beyond the single meeting would be too much of a stretch given the paucity of information on the paper.

And that's only if it's for real. Me, personally... I have no way to prove this, but I've come to a tentative conclusion it's nothing more than maybe an agenda for discussion. That last segment that reads "USG APPROVAL and DELIVERY OF:" reads like many of the proposed "Action Items" I see circulate before formal meetings where I work ("Blackout of System "X" for vendor upgrade..."), the point being that a doc that states something in a very straightforward, positive manner can still be nothing more than a point for discussion.

And let's be honest: We've never been given the source of the agency/department/bureau that the FOIA was for. We've never been given verifiable information. So even though I'm willing to grant it legitimacy, I still say that its suspect because there's no way to verify that it even came from the government.

Anyway, enough about this "Osman" doc. Even if it were true, it's still only one single point of data. And there are reams of publicly available and verifiable pieces of information more fully explaining Osama's activities than this one does.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul_in_crosshairs119.html) by American Free Press more than (http://web.archive.org/web/20080211174256/http://www.tedgunderson.com/Articles/US+Armed+and+Promoted+Terrorist.htm) one time (http://web.archive.org/web/20080122092109/http://tedgunderson.com/Articles/Feds+Knew+of+9-11+and+did+nothing.htm), but he is also a regular speaker (http://web.archive.org/web/20070508033642/http://www.americanfreepress.net/TBR_Conference_Report_2002.pdf) at AFP conferences (http://enationalist.com/portal/index/index.php?/Latest/newsflash-2.html), and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050829113804/http://www.americanfreepress.net/Issue_32_Master1_AFP_2002.pdf). This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser”.

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Oh, yes. Good point. While details about the originator of the doc do not definitively refute it, the fact remains that credibility matters. And a tainted source must be viewed with a highly doubting eye, especially when no collaborating evidence is provided.

It's been said a zillion times in this forum: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This one is no exception.

[Senenmut]

So, it is unsourced? You have no idea where it came from?

Let me get this straight, you want me or somebody else to find the origin of a piece of paper, which you have offered up. Why would anybody do that for you? If you are so concerned why don't you do it?

if it bothers you so much and you think it is significant what, exactly, is stopping you from finding out where it came from ?

ive tried to find the source and couldnt find it. im not asking for anyone to find it for me. i was hoping that someone did know the source. 911debunking didnt know. so what is wrong with me asking??

[stateofgrace]

ive tried to find the source and couldnt find it. im not asking for anyone to find it for me. i was hoping that someone did know the source. 911debunking didnt know. so what is wrong with me asking??

Really ?

And this is how you ask is it ?

have any debunkers figured out where this came from yet? <snip>

i doubt any "twoofer" would go through the trouble and create something like this....

<snip>


So if you wasn't asking somebody to find the source of this paper for you, what exactly was you asking ?

Maybe you could state the exact reason you put forward the paper.

[R.Mackey]

You know, I'm willing to actually believe that the "Osman" document is legitimate. It's just that my response to the info is still "so what?". One, single documented meeting? If the presumptions about the document are true? Even if we take it at face value, as Mike W. said, it actually bolsters the argument that CIA - bin Laden links were weak, not strong. And extrapolation beyond the single meeting would be too much of a stretch given the paucity of information on the paper.

I'm not. Sometimes it's good to play Devil's Advocate, but here the document is so laughable that there's no point.

Anyone with vision better than about 20/200 will note the one Senemut brought is not the same as the one we've seen before, as shown at 911Myths. The new one has got lots more scary notes and redaction marks on it.

These are, quite unquestionably, forgeries. Clumsy ones.

So at some point, somebody decided the original, with bizarre references to bin Laden, Red Mercury, and even Neutronics (???) on the same page, still wasn't exciting enough for the conspiracy set, and decided to add even more. Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.

So, what reason do we have to accept this document? We know it's been altered, and we have no original provenance, and we know the person who originally brought it forth is a complete loon...

To the conspiracy set, you'll find your lives a lot less embarrassing if you stop falling for all this stuff. I can't believe anybody buys it, but you keep exceeding my expectations.

[progge]

Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.


Um, I can´t forbear to point out that Ted Gunderson has done some extraordinary research on Area 51 (http://web.archive.org/web/20000616221714/http://www.wiolawa.com/area51.htm), too.

make the introductions for the speakers who included Ted Gunderson.. who was speaking from his position of authority, having been an ex-FBI chief and retiring after 27 years of service.......they began by showing a small segment of a true film( from Thomas C. who gave his life for us to have the information ) on both the creatures that were being created at Area 51 from our human DNA... and the Sacrificial Rites called Satanism.... in which our fellow humans are slaughtered..

http://web.archive.org/web/20000616221714/http://www.wiolawa.com/area51.htm

[R.Mackey]

Doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me is how adults, no matter how uneducated, can fall for things like this. It's not even smart enough to qualify as a hoax, it's just a page full of nonsense written by a schizophrenic!

[WUBRINY63]

I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

[UNLoVedRebel]

There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind.
Evidence?

Please tell me you're not another wiki scholar who doesn't know the difference between a Saudi and an Afghani.

[Senenmut]

I'm not. Sometimes it's good to play Devil's Advocate, but here the document is so laughable that there's no point.

Anyone with vision better than about 20/200 will note the one Senemut brought is not the same as the one we've seen before, as shown at 911Myths. The new one has got lots more scary notes and redaction marks on it.

These are, quite unquestionably, forgeries. Clumsy ones.

So at some point, somebody decided the original, with bizarre references to bin Laden, Red Mercury, and even Neutronics (???) on the same page, still wasn't exciting enough for the conspiracy set, and decided to add even more. Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.

So, what reason do we have to accept this document? We know it's been altered, and we have no original provenance, and we know the person who originally brought it forth is a complete loon...

To the conspiracy set, you'll find your lives a lot less embarrassing if you stop falling for all this stuff. I can't believe anybody buys it, but you keep exceeding my expectations.

did PROMIS software exist? did the mossad have it and what did they use it for?

answer- they spied on people with it!!

try reading alittle bit about it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=1IeO8xtD86YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gideon%27s+spies#v=onepage&q=promis&f=false

did bin laden have it?

" Fox News has learned that government officials suspect Osama bin Laden may have highly sophisticated U.S. government software, that has been used by several governments, including the United States, for classified intelligence and law enforcement information.

Bin Laden allegedly purchased it from Russian sources, after Russia got it from convicted spy and former FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who was nabbed earlier this year. "

http://www.boingboing.net/2001/10/17/remember_promis_it_w.html

so do u think the mossad could have accesed bin laden through the promis software he had. if u read some of gideons spies, i would see it NOT too far of a stretch!

[BigAl]

I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

Wrong on most points. See the relevant sections of the web page, below. I suggest you read soime of the books listed in the bibliography.

http://911links.webs.com/binLaden.htm

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda Updated 5/22/09

Table Of Contents
[1] NEWS (Jan 2001) Some See U.S. as Terrorists' Next Big Target
[2] (Jan 2001) ObL Tells Reporter that US attacks are comming.
[3] New York Times reports about al Queda about 89 times prior to 9/11/2001
[4] bin Laden quotes
[5] Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology
[6] 1996: bin Laden declares war on America.
[7] ObL attacks on America prior to 2001 listed
[8] Specific attack warnings
[9] Bibliography
[10] 1998 ObL Fatwa calling for attack on the US
[11] Complete 9/11 timeline
[12] Answer to "bin Laden not wanted by FBI"
[13] US Government "Wanted" poster for biin Laden

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.


I don't get this. You tell us to give up "pretend skepticism", but almost everything you've just posted in that comment is a matter of belief for you.

That's not an effective argument.

[stateofgrace]

The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. .

Now this is interesting, are you accusing the entire Bin Laden family of being mass murdering terrorists ?

Is it guilt by family ties that you are promoting? If my brother goes out and offs somebody I am also guilty, right?

[R.Mackey]

did PROMIS software exist? did the mossad have it and what did they use it for?

answer- they spied on people with it!! [...]

so do u think the mossad could have accesed bin laden through the promis software he had. if u read some of gideons spies, i would see it NOT too far of a stretch!

I almost never respond to anti-Semites who are already on my Ignore list, but this time I'll make an exception.

Do you, Senenmut, acknowledge that the scanned page you presented -- the only attempt at evidence you've brought to this discussion -- has been altered from the earlier form, shown here (http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html)?

Why was it altered?

[Rogue1stclass]

Maybe by bombshell, he meant that this Sibel person is hot.

[progge]

I really don't find any of this hard to believe. [...] no doubt in my mind. [...] Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

I prefer skepticism to pure believe, apparently you prefer believe.


There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush.

Yes, there is also this story ...

The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit.

"A relationship with the Bin laden family" - you are not very specific! Are you aware of the fact that most of the UBL family members formally dissociated themselves from UBL (http://web.archive.org/web/20061205014650/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011112fa_FACT3?011112fa_FACT3) back in the 90´s?

It´s also worth noticing that they were very carefully observed the years before.

"That family had been looked at very, very carefully in the two-year period leading up to September 11," after the al Qaeda bombings of American embassies in East Africa, said retired CIA official Vince Cannistraro.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

Clarke said yesterday that the furor over the flights of Saudi citizens is much ado about nothing.
“This is a tempest in a teapot,” he said, adding that, since the attacks, the FBI has never said that any of the passengers aboard the flight shouldn’t have been allowed to leave or were wanted for further investigation.
He said that many members of the bin Laden family had been subjects of FBI surveillance for years before the attacks and were well-known to law-enforcement officials.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040529013533/http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

So on which legal basis Dick Clarke or whoever should have argued for stopping the UBL family members from leaving the country? I know of none.

[Senenmut]

I almost never respond to anti-Semites who are already on my Ignore list, but this time I'll make an exception.

Do you, Senenmut, acknowledge that the scanned page you presented -- the only attempt at evidence you've brought to this discussion -- has been altered from the earlier form, shown here (http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html)?

Why was it altered?

if we knew the source, then we could tell. wouldnt u like to know the source?

re u calling me an anti semite because i show u that the mossad had promis and bin laden did too and if one reads alittle of gideons spies then one can come to a logical conclusion that the mossad could most likely access bin laden's network?

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm not. Sometimes it's good to play Devil's Advocate, but here the document is so laughable that there's no point.

Anyone with vision better than about 20/200 will note the one Senemut brought is not the same as the one we've seen before, as shown at 911Myths. The new one has got lots more scary notes and redaction marks on it.

These are, quite unquestionably, forgeries. Clumsy ones.


Jesus Christ. No, I didn't look at what he posted; I have that moron on ignore. I was playing off of FineWine's post and just thought Senemut resurrected the old "Osman" doc as Mike W. had it, so I decided to do my normal pedant thing and do a teachable moment for new readers. Unblanking him temporarily, yes, I do see all that extra crap now. That's ***** ridiculous, and stupid to boot. These truthers just can't seem to do anything without lying, and this shows that.

Congratulations, Senemut. You found a way to exceed my already cynical appraisal of your credulity.


So at some point, somebody decided the original, with bizarre references to bin Laden, Red Mercury, and even Neutronics (???) on the same page, still wasn't exciting enough for the conspiracy set, and decided to add even more. Utterly ridiculous. The only things missing from the original are Area 51, the Philadelphia Experiment, and Hitler's Brain.

So, what reason do we have to accept this document? We know it's been altered, and we have no original provenance, and we know the person who originally brought it forth is a complete loon...

To the conspiracy set, you'll find your lives a lot less embarrassing if you stop falling for all this stuff. I can't believe anybody buys it, but you keep exceeding my expectations.

Mother of God, truthers, do you all really think lipstick on a pig improves it? Why did a small segment without all the extraneous crap on it suddenly become what Senemut tried to pass off? None of you all realize that historical debate is about establishing accuracy, not selling points of view. If you did, you guys wouldn't try to pull this crap, you'd try to validate the doc.

Learn something, dammit: Stupid garbage like this ruins your credibility. From now on, we can judge the credulity of a claimant by simply seeing if he bothers to compare against the original doc or not. You fools just found another way for others to expose gullibility. Congratulations.

[Hokulele]

if we knew the source, then we could tell. wouldnt u like to know the source?

re u calling me an anti semite because i show u that the mossad had promis and bin laden did too and if one reads alittle of gideons spies then one can come to a logical conclusion that the mossad could most likely access bin laden's network?


How on earth does any of that address R.Mackey's questions?

[R.Mackey]

To Senenmut, dude, just look at the two images. Are they the same? Yes or no?

And I'm calling you an anti-Semite because you irrationally and arbitrarily blame the Mossad for conspiracies that you don't even faintly comprehend. That fits the working definition quite nicely.

Seriously, how come none of you nuts ever blames the Riigi Teabeamet or the GRLS? Why is it always the Mossad? Be honest.

[T.A.M.]

I really don't find any of this hard to believe. I mean where is he? Who is hiding him all of these years? Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM? The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country. There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind. The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it. Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit. There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him. Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush. And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

so which sock puppet are you?

[stateofgrace]

if we knew the source, then we could tell. wouldnt u like to know the source?

re u calling me an anti semite because i show u that the mossad had promis and bin laden did too and if one reads alittle of gideons spies then one can come to a logical conclusion that the mossad could most likely access bin laden's network?

The source? There is no source; it is a forgery unless you prove it is genuine. Of course you being a truth seeker can prove me wrong here, can you not?

Will you also stop writing in text; this is a forum, not a mobile phone.

[Senenmut]

To Senenmut, dude, just look at the two images. Are they the same? Yes or no?

And I'm calling you an anti-Semite because you irrationally and arbitrarily blame the Mossad for conspiracies that you don't even faintly comprehend. That fits the working definition quite nicely.

Seriously, how come none of you nuts ever blames the Riigi Teabeamet or the GRLS? Why is it always the Mossad? Be honest.


i looked, it would be nice to see an original.

but, look at them side by side. the one from 911 debunking looks as though its been cleaned up.

look at mine on the second line where it says "on file and fully documented".

now look at 911debunking. no circle around item 1 but look closly at the phrase on line 2 that says "on file and fully documented."

notice anything strange?? like somone erased the circle around item one.

looks as though someone "cleaned" the doc on debunking page.

[Hokulele]

*Facepalm*

[Senenmut]

To Senenmut, dude, just look at the two images. Are they the same? Yes or no?

And I'm calling you an anti-Semite because you irrationally and arbitrarily blame the Mossad for conspiracies that you don't even faintly comprehend. That fits the working definition quite nicely.

Seriously, how come none of you nuts ever blames the Riigi Teabeamet or the GRLS? Why is it always the Mossad? Be honest.

so did the mossad have promis or not? be honest now!! haha....

[R.Mackey]

look at mine on the second line where it says "on file and fully documented".

now look at 911debunking. no circle around item 1 but look closly at the phrase on line 2 that says "on file and fully documented."

notice anything strange?? like somone erased the circle around item one.

looks as though someone "cleaned" the doc on debunking page.

So, in other words:

1. Despite being shown the discrepancies, you are STILL duped by the copy you brought to the discussion, which is absolutely and irrefutably a forgery; and

2. Because it doesn't match the earlier version, you now accuse us of "erasing" parts of it, thus implying we're complicit.

Add that to the fact it's nonsense to begin with -- seriously, Red Mercury is about the stupidest hoax ever invented, and it's on that page too -- and yet you still support it??

In light of the above evidence, I am forced to conclude that you simply aren't very smart. I mean that with all due respect. Back to Ignore with you, you've earned it.

[ElMondoHummus]

if we knew the source, then we could tell. wouldnt u like to know the source?

re u calling me an anti semite because i show u that the mossad had promis and bin laden did too and if one reads alittle of gideons spies then one can come to a logical conclusion that the mossad could most likely access bin laden's network?

Do you have any idea what Promis even is?? It Inslaw's "Prosecutor's Management and Information System". It's a database and analysis suite that keeps track of what law enforcement officials discover about individuals! It's freakin' automation software. It does not - indeed, can not - know any more than the bureau or agency that adds data to it to begin with! And it's 80's freakin' technology; just how much analytic power do you think it really has??

And even if the trojaned version of it really did end up in bin Laden's possesion, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Is this some sort of allegation that Mossad supposedly had inside information on bin Laden? "Penetrating bin Laden's network" through Promis would at best mean that they could see what he was looking at in Promis. And all bin Laden would be looking at is what knowledge was generated by the bureau that owned whatever copy of Promis he bought, and that presumes he got the data sets as well as the software. Which was something that was never established!

Tell the truth: Did you just see "Promis" and "Mossad" and presume there was some sooper sekrit abilty for Mossad to suddenly do something mysterious that involved bin Laden and therefore proves the "Official Story" wrong? Was that your thought process? Because attributing abilities to Promis that it doesn't have - again, it's an automation and tracking database suite - requires painfully gullible leaps like that, and most of us understand that the real work doesn't work like Sandra Bullock's movie "The Net".

Back on ignore you go. As I said before, I already had a low opinion of your intellectual capacity, and you still found a way to make me realize I was giving you too much credit. That's just unbelievable.

[Senenmut]

So, in other words:

1. Despite being shown the discrepancies, you are STILL duped by the copy you brought to the discussion, which is absolutely and irrefutably a forgery; and

2. Because it doesn't match the earlier version, you now accuse us of "erasing" parts of it, thus implying we're complicit.

Add that to the fact it's nonsense to begin with -- seriously, Red Mercury is about the stupidest hoax ever invented, and it's on that page too -- and yet you still support it??

In light of the above evidence, I am forced to conclude that you simply aren't very smart. I mean that with all due respect. Back to Ignore with you, you've earned it.

what earlier one?

so which one is the original. i have shown you that the debunking page has the "cleaned" up version (lines erased)?

are you denying that it looks as though it has been "cleaned" up?

[Senenmut]

Do you have any idea what Promis even is?? It Inslaw's "Prosecutor's Management and Information System". It's a database and analysis suite that keeps track of what law enforcement officials discover about individuals! It's freakin' automation software. It does not - indeed, can not - know any more than the bureau or agency that adds data to it to begin with! And it's 80's freakin' technology; just how much analytic power do you think it really has??

And even if the trojaned version of it really did end up in bin Laden's possesion, what the hell is that supposed to mean? Is this some sort of allegation that Mossad supposedly had inside information on bin Laden? "Penetrating bin Laden's network" through Promis would at best mean that they could see what he was looking at in Promis. And all bin Laden would be looking at is what knowledge was generated by the bureau that owned whatever copy of Promis he bought, and that presumes he got the data sets as well as the software. Which was something that was never established!

Tell the truth: Did you just see "Promis" and "Mossad" and presume there was some sooper sekrit abilty for Mossad to suddenly do something mysterious that involved bin Laden and therefore proves the "Official Story" wrong? Was that your thought process? Because attributing abilities to Promis that it doesn't have - again, it's an automation and tracking database suite - requires painfully gullible leaps like that, and most of us understand that the real work doesn't work like Sandra Bullock's movie "The Net".

Back on ignore you go. As I said before, I already had a low opinion of your intellectual capacity, and you still found a way to make me realize I was giving you too much credit. That's just unbelievable.


read up on PROMIS and get back with me. it gets deep.

[BigAl]

read up on PROMIS and get back with me. it gets deep.

It was deep in BS 30 years ago when the local Conspiracy loons went on-and-on about it being stolen from INSLAW.

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

[boloboffin]

The Mossad also has Microsoft Excel AND take classes in how to use it. Strue.

[Senenmut]

So, in other words:

1. Despite being shown the discrepancies, you are STILL duped by the copy you brought to the discussion, which is absolutely and irrefutably a forgery; and

2. Because it doesn't match the earlier version, you now accuse us of "erasing" parts of it, thus implying we're complicit.

Add that to the fact it's nonsense to begin with -- seriously, Red Mercury is about the stupidest hoax ever invented, and it's on that page too -- and yet you still support it??

In light of the above evidence, I am forced to conclude that you simply aren't very smart. I mean that with all due respect. Back to Ignore with you, you've earned it.

about red mercury, even if there is no such thing as real red mercury, it sounds like they were still making money selling the stuff (and in sting operations).

http://www.ricekiller.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27903

is this real **** or just fake red mercury.

"Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction."






http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444a73bd9f6942f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17095)

[geggy]

ITS BEEN 8 YEARS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN HASNT BEEN CAUGHT SINCE, LETTING ALONE THE US LET HIM SLIP AWAY

http://web.archive.org/web/20060217051331/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I am liable to believe sibel's claims afterall look who have benefitted immensely from the wars in the middle east, the military industrial complex. where do you think the billions of dollars thats been spent is going?

[geggy]

debunkers have been crying for whistleblowers, well you got some and look how you reacted :lol

[R.Mackey]

491, geggy.

[geggy]

educate yourself: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&financing_of_al-qaeda:_a_more_detailed_look=bmiPtech

[geggy]

491, geggy.

i ask again...where do you think the billions of dollars thats been spent is going?

[boloboffin]

493, geggy.

[geggy]

i ask again...where do you think the billions of dollars thats been spent is going? cant answer a simple question?

[dtugg]

Dick Cheney's pocket?

[carlitos]

Wow. I'm watching Barb Wire on cable, and this thread is weirder.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

2. Because it doesn't match the earlier version, you now accuse us of "erasing" parts of it [...]


Sorry, but Senenmut is actually correct about this part. The version on 911myths.com has been altered; most of the extraneous markings being removed.

I'll have a quick analysis up in a bit.

[Justin39640]

Maybe by bombshell, he meant that this Sibel person is hot.
idk if youd call her a bombshell but shes cute petite and brunette - my type :D
http://tomflocco.com/fsimage/PogoEdmondsDoj/SibelEdmondsHome.jpg
some pics she does look real good in
i was hoping that wasnt the case as i hit google images a few minutes ago lol
Do you have any idea what Promis even is?? It Inslaw's "Prosecutor's Management and Information System". It's a database and analysis suite that keeps track of what law enforcement officials discover about individuals! It's freakin' automation software. It does not - indeed, can not - know any more than the bureau or agency that adds data to it to begin with! And it's 80's freakin' technology; just how much analytic power do you think it really has??

this bad boy was from the 80s
http://www.sorgonet.com/security/tea/wopr.jpg
would you like to play a game?

sen reads like a bad spy novel
i think he needs to cut down on the tom clancy

[R.Mackey]

Sorry, but Senenmut is actually correct about this part. The version on 911myths.com has been altered; most of the extraneous markings being removed.

I'll have a quick analysis up in a bit.

'zat a fact? Never would have thought.

Nonetheless, the original is totally ridiculous. "Red Mercury" is one of those things like "pyroclastic flows" in a context other than vulcanology -- it's not real, it's not anything. It's just a meme. It's some piece of nonsense that some nut came up with, and some other nut believed, and it makes the rounds filling the mouths of idiots who parrot whatever they hear. And, somehow, it wound up here.

Does it ever occur to them to talk to an expert? Like a real expert? Call up a physics department and ask them if "ballotechnics" are even physically possible. It doesn't take long. But, no, it's much more "fun" to believe in impossible things. It always is.

And that's why we point and laugh.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Wow. I'm watching Barb Wire on cable, and this thread is weirder.

I've only read a few posts in this thread. If it gets weirder than Gigli, let me know.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'll have a quick analysis up in a bit.


*mutters* Took me long enough to figure how to do simple GIF animations in Fireworks CS4...

Anyway...

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/tim-osman-memo-comparison.gif

I've highlighted areas of interest. In the 911myths.com version (the one with less crap on it), the entire top portion of the document has obviously been replaced.

Additionally, throughout the image you can see areas where lines have crossed words in Senenmut's version, but weren't removed in the 911myths.com version.

You can also see that in certain other areas, parts of text have been removed along with the markings where the two come very close.

ETA: As a note, I didn't have to do any repositioning to get these images to line up. They fit each other perfectly.

Not to say Senenmut's version is legit, or even the original. It's just that it seems the version on 911myths.com has been altered from the version Senenmut posted.

[carlitos]

That proves it. Inside jobby job.

[Brainster]

Oh, God, now we're back on the PROMIS software thing? Crap, what is this, 2004 all over again? I swear, if somebody brings up P-Tech, I will scream!:(

[boloboffin]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/marty_feldman.jpg

P-Tech.

[Caustic Logic]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing.

No, clearly it was for her websire "letsibeledmondsspeak," her repeated TV news and documentary appearances, and her contined ability to discover new (or reveal old?) bombshells.
:confused:
ETA: I see everyone else already covered this...

NONETHELESS, this scenario she's explaining is intriguing and I'm willing to give it a fair hearing. You quote her thus:
I have to jump in here and say that I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know.
Doesn't sound like a good start. "I know," "trust me," etc. is usually what peoplesay when they don't have evidence. I'll look into it closer to see what details she gives about this stuff she saw and how much sense it makes and why it's taken her so long to reveal it.

I'll check the rest of this thread so far first.

bin Ladin: "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help...

To be fair, this isn't the best evidence. If he HAD knowingly helped the U.S., which is unlikely, since he was probably not aware the US and USSR were even enemies ;) , would he be openly owning up to it later as he was declaring a Jihad on those same people?

[JamesB]

The fact that Leo Wanta, the $27 trillion man is mentioned, pretty much makes that document fake in my mind.

http://thechiefbrief.blogspot.com/search?q=leo+wanta

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nonetheless, the original is totally ridiculous.
The fact that Leo Wanta, the $27 trillion man is mentioned, pretty much makes that document fake in my mind.


Oh, I absolutely agree. There are more than enough reasons to believe the document is total crap. Figuring out which of the two versions is the "correct" one doesn't really change anything.

[R.Mackey]

:D I missed the Leo Wanta connection.

How about the Loch Ness Monster? Any sightings of Nessie?

ETA: Yup, there he is... How'd I miss that??

Honestly, Truthers, this "document" is the kind of thing designed to PUNK you guys. And you still don't get it.

[MikeW]

Wasn't it around the same time Edmonds started shooting her mouth off that the blame started to shift to KSM?
No. The idea that bin Laden was given 100% of the responsibility for planning the operation first, then the story changed later, is a myth invented by truthers for their own purposes. In reality the Blair dossier (http://www.counterpunch.org/dossier1.html) (said by many to be a parroting of the US intelligence view) said "the detailed planning for the terrorist attacks of 11 September was carried out by one of Osama Bin Laden's close associates", and this was before Afghanistan was attacked. Meanwhile, if you look at the White House press conferences for the time, you can see they talk about al Qaeda more than bin Laden, and on several occasions say the fight is about much more than just one man.

[Brainster]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/marty_feldman.jpg

P-Tech.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggggghhhhhh!

[Caustic Logic]

yeah, ive already read that awhile back. that still didnt tell me the source of this letter.


No one here can tell you either just who faked this letter and when. The site gives good reasons to doubt its authenticity. Only a false-lead-CT-gibberish-spewing agency would release this to an FOIA requester in 2003. And I don't see that, or anything in the header box. No specific agency to even call and ask "is this yours?" No supp. docs. No other clues at all.

So... who was it again that said this was a real clue? That's the people to ask where it came from. Don't believe what they say of course, but I'm sure it'll start like "well, that's what's so mysterious..." and get all convoluted and full of fascinating distracting details...

Plus, since it's not a real clue, there's not much reason to identify a prankster, is there? You hoping to press charges?

[Caustic Logic]

'"Red Mercury" is one of those things like "pyroclastic flows" in a context other than vulcanology -- it's not real, it's not anything. It's just a meme. It's some piece of nonsense that some nut came up with, and some other nut believed, and it makes the rounds filling the mouths of idiots who parrot whatever they hear. And, somehow, it wound up here.

It's good you're here with that knowledge. Without it, I'd miss such an obvious clue - on top of several others - so that only the dumbest and most deluded would buy the hoax.

So Senenmut, you understand this clue of yours is someone playing a joke on you now, right? And it would be embarassing to continue on the presumption it "might be real"?

[T.A.M.]

ITS BEEN 8 YEARS AND OSAMA BIN LADEN HASNT BEEN CAUGHT SINCE, LETTING ALONE THE US LET HIM SLIP AWAY

http://web.archive.org/web/20060217051331/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/

I am liable to believe sibel's claims afterall look who have benefitted immensely from the wars in the middle east, the military industrial complex. where do you think the billions of dollars thats been spent is going?

Why does the bolded not surprise me in the least.

TAM

[Foolmewunz]

Just as a footnote on Ted Gunderson:
Let me add that this somewhat strange person has strong connections to the hoax producers at the American Free Press. Not only was he interviewed (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul_in_crosshairs119.html) by American Free Press more than (http://web.archive.org/web/20080211174256/http://www.tedgunderson.com/Articles/US+Armed+and+Promoted+Terrorist.htm) one time (http://web.archive.org/web/20080122092109/http://tedgunderson.com/Articles/Feds+Knew+of+9-11+and+did+nothing.htm), but he is also a regular speaker (http://web.archive.org/web/20070508033642/http://www.americanfreepress.net/TBR_Conference_Report_2002.pdf) at AFP conferences (http://enationalist.com/portal/index/index.php?/Latest/newsflash-2.html), and ran a southeastern bureau for AFP back in 2002 (http://web.archive.org/web/20050829113804/http://www.americanfreepress.net/Issue_32_Master1_AFP_2002.pdf). This is probably why the AFP calls him an AFP “advertiser” (http://www.americanfreepress.net/Media_Kit_Ad_Sizes_New.pdf).

No guilt by association intended, but everything Gunderson claims should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

There's no such thing as "just a footnote" on Gunderson. There will always be another, "Oh, wait, isn't he the nutbar who said....." moment. From McMartin Preschool to Oklahoma City to Sonny Bono, he'll always have a new routine to try out on the public.

Here he is in 2008 solving the Sonny Bono hit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23483093-12377,00.html

[metamars]

:rolleyes:

Then I strongly advise you to read the book, and to educate yourself on the subject you are allegedly so interested in.

Once you know the first thing about what you're talking about, I believe you will find yourself less easily duped.

Egad, yet another fail for the Truth Movement.

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11), where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible" (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/31/63124/3823/429#c429), mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.

unless you can show how he and his hundreds of interviewees got it totally wrong, Ms. Edmonds is not even faintly credible.


Mary2002:

We did, after all, have the CIA and NSA actively hiding from the FBI the facts about a couple of the 9/11 hijackers location in the US before 9/11. Read Lawrence Wright's book, The Looming Tower, for some insight on how the left hand can not know what the right hand is doing. Given the relationship of someone like Woolsey in the Chechnyan situation, it would be hard to believe that there were NOT any eyebrows to be raised there.

(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is at one time we had an interest in UBL fighting the Russians and now we are in that same country.


Wrong. The US funded the Afghani's directly, not the visiting Arabs. Learn history.


There was a CIA/UBL relationship no doubt in my mind.


Evidence?


The President and his family had a relationship with the Bin Laden family both on 9/11 and for years leading up to it.


Most of the bin Laden family, as well as the royal family of Saudi Arabia have disowned him. Read Steven Coll's Ghost Wars, as well as anything on bin Laden by Peter Berg. And that's just off the top of my head; others can chime in and list other references.


Any Bin Laden family members right after 9/11 were allowed to flee with little questioning even as his picture was posted everywhere as the main culprit.


You're parroting a misrepresentation. Read:
http://www.911myths.com/html/family_flights.html


There is also the story of him being in a hospital somewhere right before 9/11 and CIA people visiting him.


Yet more 911myths education needed here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html


Again I find that not hard to believe. Alec Station was shutdown later by President Bush.


And what? That means that any and all investigation on bin Laden stopped? Is that what you're trying to suggest?


And again, where the hell is he? Give me a break.

Stop with your knee jerk pretend skepticism.

You need to stop with your knee jerk listing of refuted myths. Argumentum via Mass is not impressive if none of the individual arguments dovetail and mutually support, let alone when each individual item is a misrepresentation to begin with.

[ElMondoHummus]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11), where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible" (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/31/63124/3823/429#c429), mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.




Mary2002:



(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

Shorter Metamars: I'm too lazy to refute this on my own, so I'm going to point to someone else as if it helps my argument.

:rolleyes:

[Foolmewunz]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11), where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

In particular, one of the posters named Mary2002, in a post entitled "Leahy & Grassley both said she was credible" (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/31/63124/3823/429#c429), mentions exactly this book, but makes no suggestion such as you do, viz.




Mary2002:



(She does say that the title is sensationalized, though.)

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

Mary's welcome here, as are any members who can abide by the MA and wish to discuss things. She doesn't need an invitation.

What does she say about your thread title, I wonder? Sensationalized?

(And real nice of you to tell us that you have such a closed mind that you only read things which you know will agree with your point of view. Settles a few questions, I guess.)

[Foolmewunz]

Shorter Metamars: I'm too lazy to refute this on my own, so I'm going to point to someone else as if it helps my argument.

:rolleyes:

More important.... Why would Metamars start a thread, the topic of which he is incapable of discussing in depth?

[jhunter1163]

If you want to debate Edmonds' new claim with somebody who has already read the book, I suggest that you either engage Mary2002 at dailykos, or else, invite her here. Frankly, as she is obviously capable of making serious posts, my guess is that she'll take one look at the half-wits and misanthropes of the JREF forum, and say "No thanks". So, if you really want a serious discussion/debate on Looming Tower + Edmonds, I suggest that you post there. You can always quote her here, and provide links.

If Mary2002 wants to come here and engage us, she will; and I'd lay money that if she does, she'll get schooled just like all the other poli-sci major wannabe pundits that have come here over the past couple years have (JihadJane, I'm looking at you).

Metamars, ask yourself this; why is it that all of the leading lights of the Twoof movement, EVERY ONE, have declined to come here? It couldn't be because their lies and deceit and ignorance would be instantly and unmercifully exposed for the world to see, could it?

Gage reads here. Avery reads here. The Jones boys read here. Why don't they post?

[Justin39640]

There's no such thing as "just a footnote" on Gunderson. There will always be another, "Oh, wait, isn't he the nutbar who said....." moment. From McMartin Preschool to Oklahoma City to Sonny Bono, he'll always have a new routine to try out on the public.

Here he is in 2008 solving the Sonny Bono hit.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23483093-12377,00.html

maybe it was the same NWO agents that knocked down the light poles moved that tree in the way

[R.Mackey]

Except for JREF, I never bother reading the writings of Loomatics!

But seriously, I wish I had the time to read that, and many other books. In the meantime, you can take a look at the dailykos thread on the Sibel Edmonds bombshell (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11), where, unlike JREF where the percentage of snark + insult + inane is over 90%, I'd say it's less than 20%.

Yes, there seem to be many more credulous idiots over there. Am I supposed to be impressed? Heck, you've got folks there clinging to the Afghan Pipeline nonsense. Yet even so, over there, they aren't pushing this as evidence of OMGIHOP.

This is like the sparring I've had with Childlike Empress. There is no freaking conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there haven't been abuses of the judicial system along the way. You're conflating. Just because Bush/Cheney did bad things doesn't mean they're automatically guilty of every evil thing we can imagine.

Anyway, stop making excuses and read the damn book. Then open your mouth. "I don't have time" while making hundreds of lengthy and naive posts here is the limpest excuse ever.

Do your homework or you get an F. Pretty simple concept.

[metamars]

If Mary2002 wants to come here and engage us, she will; and I'd lay money that if she does, she'll get schooled just like all the other poli-sci major wannabe pundits that have come here over the past couple years have (JihadJane, I'm looking at you).

Metamars, ask yourself this; why is it that all of the leading lights of the Twoof movement, EVERY ONE, have declined to come here? It couldn't be because their lies and deceit and ignorance would be instantly and unmercifully exposed for the world to see, could it?

Gage reads here. Avery reads here. The Jones boys read here. Why don't they post?

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

[ElMondoHummus]

No, I don't think Dick Cheney was plotting directly with Bin Laden. Do I think that a Chechnyan peace NGO organize and run by Ledeen, Woolsey, Perle, etc. could have been involved in surreptitiously funding, via Turkish contacts to launder, some Afghan based training camps for fighters to send to Chechnya and harass the Soviets? Sure...


There's a general error that most truthers continually commit and I want to comment on: Equating anything to do with Afghanistan with the US being associated with bin Laden. Granted, Mary2002's not making such a direct charge herself - she's building an argument about "working through "proxies", and that topic deserves its own treatment - but so many other truthers make that presumptive leap that I feel the need to address it.

No one - no one - denies that the US funded, trained, and gave assistance to the anti-Soviet Afghani Mujahadeen, but people automatically conflating those with bin Laden demonstrate an extreme lack of understanding. Read Looming Tower and other works. Understand just how late bin Laden came into the conflict, and how much derision the Arabs were held in by the Afghanis. Understand that bin Laden's "value" to Saudi involvement in Afghanistan was that he was capable of raising his own funding and resources and didn't have to depend on anyone else. And understand that at the time, the US didn't fund bin Laden but rather funded the Mujahadeen; one doesn't mean the other.

This is exactly what I mean about reading the references we provide. There is detail there about the relationships of the various groups and people that are totally blown past and ignored when conspiracy advocates automtically conflate US aid to Afghan Mujahadeed with a relationship to bin Laden. Doing so is erroneous. Again, his publicly stated complaint about the US at that time was that they didn't aid him. Too many of you conspiracy believers ignore this.

[carlitos]

metamars:

- Reading the Daily Kos makes you dumber.
- Reading The Looming Tower will make you smarter.

Your choice.
A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.
BTW, I do not think that "half wits" means what you think it means. If you are going to insult people, don't use "facility" when you mean "faculty." Ask one of your teachers about this, if it isn't clear.

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

project much?

get a life. You know darn well there are a great many intelligent, articulate posters here. Sure, after 3 years of the truth movement insanity, many here haven't the want or energy to knock down for the 5000th time, the "Steel at GZ" or other such nonsense, but your comment, well besides not having any real evidence to back it up, is merely the opinion of a bitter poster who knows he cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the forum's citizenship.

This isn't dailykos, or "amazon.com forums" or any other sort of easy pickings.

You don't like it...Too bad.

bring them on. Bring anyone over here you like...see how they make out. I am sure for every MORON who posts over at the kos, there is someone who thinks your tripe is just that...tripe.

If they can't take the heat, tell them not to bother...cowards are not welcome.

As for your intellectual arrogance, while I do not have a problem with it persay (I dislike a moron spewing crap as much as the next guy), I think it is mere grandstanding, as I have never seen you post anything on this forum noteworthy either for its intellectual prowess, or its insightfulness.

You know where the door is.

TAM:)

[16.5]

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

Umm, like the "half wits" in my thread that proved your fraud of a hero was trying to sell paint chips as "super thermite" in a vanity pay to publish non-peer reviewed fraud of an open access journal?

Did that joke of a paper cause lasting damage to the entire truth movement or just the dopes that wrote it and published it?

"Half wit" 16.5 checking out

[R.Mackey]

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

"I'd rather spend all day reading loopy blogs than educate myself, but I'm still smarter than all of you."

Guess how I know you're a Truther?

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, the CT subforum may not be a "bastion of half-wits and misanthropes", but it sure is a magnet for 'em.

[Justin39640]

"I'd rather spend all day reading loopy blogs than educate myself, but I'm still smarter than all of you."

Guess how I know you're a Truther?

cause he reads like a youtube comment page?

[T.A.M.]

cause he reads like a youtube comment page?

I know, and he so pwns us everyday man. like he totally owns me and u 2.

TAM;)

[metamars]

BTW, I do not think that "half wits" means what you think it means. If you are going to insult people, don't use "facility" when you mean "faculty." Ask one of your teachers about this, if it isn't clear.

dictionary.reference.com is your friend. Why don't you look up "half wit", and "facility", and report back to this thread what you find?

[~enigma~]

Sure, after 3 years of the truth movement insanity, many here haven't the want or energy to knock down for the 5000th time
TAM, the reason is pretty much the same reason idiots like Joe Newman and there perpetual motion idiocy go essentially unchallenged. Real scientists don't bother debating stupidity because a debate tends to be seen as something between scientific equals. All the TM deserves is ridicule and derision.

[jhunter1163]

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

Hope you used proper lifting technique on those goalposts. They're pretty heavy.

Whether it's a better question or not is subjective, but it wasn't my question. My question was, "Why don't the leading Twoofers come here to JREF and debate/defend their work?"

[Childlike Empress]

Whether it's a better question or not is subjective


No, it is objectively a better question because metamars knows the answer to it (to a certain extent), while he has no way of knowing the answer to your "question"/smear attempt.

[jhunter1163]

CE, would you care to try and answer my question, as Metamars doesn't seem inclined to?

[Quad4_72]

I think it is pretty apparent that metamars is not interested in anything even close to resembling the truth, or reality for that matter. There are accounts from credible sources that are in direct contradiction to what he posted and he does not even bother to look into it. He puts blinders on and just goes right along continuing to believe his fantasy. He cannot be bothered with silly things like facts. Typical twoofer behavior. Nothing new to see here.

[Childlike Empress]

CE, would you care to try and answer my question, as Metamars doesn't seem inclined to?


Yeah, you are the reason why nobody likes to post here. Your clever questions are really frightening.

Seriously, pay attention.

[carlitos]

dictionary.reference.com is your friend. Why don't you look up "half wit", and "facility", and report back to this thread what you find?Well, this was absolutely the last thing in the world that I expected to see here. So, I looked it up. I was obviously thinking of #4 below.
FACULTY:

an ability, natural or acquired, for a particular kind of action: a faculty for making friends easily.
one of the powers of the mind, as memory, reason, or speech: Though very sick, he is in full possession of all his faculties.
an inherent capability of the body: the faculties of sight and hearing.
exceptional ability or aptitude: a president with a faculty for management.


FACILITY:
1. Often, facilities.
a. something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function affording a convenience or service: transportation facilities; educational facilities; a new research facility.
b. something that permits the easier performance of an action, course of conduct, etc.: to provide someone with every facility for accomplishing a task; to lack facilities for handling bulk mail.
2. readiness or ease due to skill, aptitude, or practice; dexterity: to compose with great facility.
3. ready compliance: Her facility in organizing and directing made her an excellent supervisor.
4. an easy-flowing manner: facility of style.
5. the quality of being easily or conveniently done or performed.
6. Often, facilities. Informal. a rest room, esp. one for use by the public, as in a theater or restaurant.
7. freedom from difficulty, controversy, misunderstanding, etc.: facility of understanding.

So, in your phrase "failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old" I assume that you meant that some of those who disagree with you "posit plausible explanations with the same dexterity and / or easy-flowing manner as a 10-year-old." Gotcha.

Thanks for pointing that out. I may disagree with you, but to your credit, I had never heard the word "facility" used in that context. I learned something today. :thumbsup:

Now that I have done what you suggested, and admitted a mistake, would you care to enlighten yourself regarding to some of the more substantive discussion here? Thanks in advance. :)

[thatsmystory]

I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.

Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.

It sure looks like US intelligence agencies were given orders to back off Saudi linked terrorist organizations. In light of Scheuer's comment this means orders to back off al Qaeda. Scheuer has put forth a few explanations for US conduct. One, he has stated that pre-9/11 capture/kill missions failed due to risk averse policy makers. Two, he stated that CIA withholding about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was due to concern about poor FBI computer systems. Three, as previously mentioned he suggested that al Qaeda was protected by the Saudi government.

I don't consider myself a "truther." I do consider myself a skeptic of official explanations. Where is the 9/11 transparency from the government? If skeptics are so full of it then why is there so much secrecy almost eight years after the attacks?

1) When will the full CIA IG report be released?

2) When will key MFR's with intelligence agents be released? For example, we haven't heard from the chief of the intel side FBI Bin Laden unit (Rod Middleton) or the chief of Alec Station from mid-'99 through 12/01 (Rich B.). Frasca? Maltbie? Corsi? Wilshire? Are we to believe all the classification is truly for reasons of national security? There is not a chance that classification procedures could be abused to conceal embarrassing and/or criminal conduct? Why should we simply trust officials like George Tenet? Did he appear to conduct himself in good faith?

3) Why is it acceptable for someone like John Farmer to put out a book which claims to set the record straight while the public doesn't have access to many of the commission records? Again, are we supposed to take Farmer at his word? Why is "trust me" an acceptable standard of proof?

4) Where is the media interest? Why haven't we seen Rod Middleton interviewed? Kevin Foust was supposed to replace Middleton as chief of the UBLU in late September of '01. Instead he started on 9/11. Why didn't Dale Watson call Middleton back as he had a lot more working knowledge than Foust?

Agent's career forged in the fires of terrorism (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/82009)

[jhunter1163]

Yeah, you are the reason why nobody likes to post here. Your clever questions are really frightening.

Seriously, pay attention.

I'll take that as a "no".

Actually, I'm quite sure that we both know why it is your Twoofy heroes won't come to JREF, and it has nothing to do with my snarky posts. :rolleyes:

[Childlike Empress]

I know why Sibel Edmonds doesn't post here. She is quite busy fighting an uphill battle for better whistleblower protection (http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-national-security-whistleblowers.html), blogging and podcasting (http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/07/podcast-show-2.html).

[metamars]

At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family.


Thanks. Your post represents a best-case scenario for somebody like myself who posts on a subject of great interest here at JREF, but not one for which I am willing to invest a lot more time, at this point in my life, to investigate further. And that is, that somebody like yourself comes along, who knows more than me and is willing to discuss it with some specificity, seriously and skeptically.

Although this should go into a new thread, and I thought to do so when I read it a couple of weeks ago, note that the LaRouche web site (I know, I know; the inevitable connection to the British is there; take it for what it's worth) recently posted a couple of articles (here's one (http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3627cover_blown_9_11.html)) and a video about what is claimed to be the Saudi intelligence handlers of two of the hijackers while they were in San Diego. This is based on information de-classified earlier this year, plus a LaRouchean investigation.


The New Evidence

Early this year, the National Archives released documents from the files of the 9/11 Commission, which were previously classified. Three of those documents, recently obtained by EIR, provide the "smoking gun," proving the central role of Saudi intelligence, and the critical support role of British intelligence in the preparation, execution, and coverup of 9/11. The most significant of the documents, still partly classified, is a "Memorandum for the Record," summarizing an April 23, 2004 interview with a Southern California-based FBI informant, who rented out a room in his home to two of the 9/11 hijackers, during 2000. Although the memorandum redacted the informant's name, other public sources have identified the man as Abdussattar Shaikh. His FBI handler has also been publicly named as Steven Butler.

.
.

Shaikh's candid description of al-Bayoumi as a Saudi intelligence agent, in regular contact with one of the 9/11 hijackers, is stunning in its own right. The fact that Shaikh was an FBI informant, who, according to several U.S. intelligence sources, regularly received payments from the Bureau to keep tabs on the Muslim community in the San Diego area, and hosted two of the hijackers, is equally stunning. But the full extent of the al-Bayoumi dossier, as known to the FBI and other U.S. government agencies, goes well beyond the surface scandal.

Al-Bayoumi was far more than a "frequent visitor" to Shaikh's home, while al-Hazmi was living there. The essential facts are as follows.
.
.

But, al-Bayoumi was also, undisputedly, an agent of Saudi intelligence!


Finally, you say:

Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.

Well, I would say that it either casts doubt on the US/Saudi friendship, or it suggests that the "friendship" has a dark side. IOW, what if, metaphorically speaking, some element of the US intelligence establishment was "holding hands" with their Saudi counterparts, as 'intimately' as President Bush used to hold hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz? (and who knows how many other Saudis - he came up near the top in Google :) )

[ktesibios]

Sorry, but Senenmut is actually correct about this part. The version on 911myths.com has been altered; most of the extraneous markings being removed.

I'll have a quick analysis up in a bit.

If you read that 9/11myths.com page, you'll notice that right under that image it refers to this link (http://www.stewwebb.com/Division%204%20team%20names%20Clintons,%20Bush%204 1,%2043%20in%20JFK%20Jr.htm).

That does not take you directly to the source, but it (along with the content of the image itself) indicates that Mike W. probably got the image from the stewwebb.com Web site.

It took a bit of looking (during which I should have been wearing a film badge or other dosimeter to measure my exposure to burning stupid), but here it is (http://www.stewwebb.com/Tom%20Laden%20Gunderson%20Stinger%20Missiles.jpg), exactly the same as seen on 911myths.com, in its natural habitat of a batcrap crazy professional conspiracy-theory grifter's Web site.

I think that we can have a high degree of confidence that whatever alterations have been made in that image have been made in the murk of a network of self-appointed "federal whistleblowers" who spend much of their time slagging each other as The Enemy and not by 911myths or any other reality-based Web site.

I didn't notice the Gunderson and red mercury references at first. Simply seeing the PROMIS and Inslaw references was enough to set off my "too good to be true" reflex. Finding that many keywords perfectly selected to tickle the conditioned reflexes of paranoid conspiracists in a single page was too much like finding a cold bottle of imported beer, a bottle opener and a frosted mug all in the same walk down to the corner store.

[quicknthedead]

I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.

Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.



Hmm...that's interesting. For the second time in one day I see two new related items on the Saudis & 9/11.

There's the highlighted above and also a thead I posted earlier today on new purported information on the Saudis, Great Britain, & 9/11, which can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149722

[R.Mackey]

See, this is the whole reason why 9/11 Trutherism is so frustrating.

There are some valid questions about the underlying support for al-Qaeda, i.e. who in the Saudi hierarchy supported them, did they know anything, was it just an individual here or there or was it whole ministries, etc. Let's not leap to conclusions without actual evidence, but these kinds of things are at least possible.

If true, these allegations also lay to rest ANY notion that anyone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, or that they were directed by elements rogue or otherwise in the US Government. Following this trail will take us farther from the realm of the Truth Movement, as science and logic usually does.

All this wild speculation about controlled demolitions, thermite, Leo Wanta, whatever only distracts and drags us further from a productive discussion. In fact, even in this thread we have people trying to extrapolate from possible Saudi support that the US supported bin Laden then, and even to this day. Stop that! It's stupid! I know you all want to polarize this discussion between "truth seekers" and "debunkers," but it just isn't that simple. What is polar, however, is the difference between "reasonable inquiry" and "wild speculation." If you're on the wrong side of that fence, then do something about it.

[quicknthedead]

.

Although this should go into a new thread, and I thought to do so when I read it a couple of weeks ago, note that the LaRouche web site (I know, I know; the inevitable connection to the British is there; take it for what it's worth) recently posted a couple of articles (here's one (http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3627cover_blown_9_11.html)) and a video about what is claimed to be the Saudi intelligence handlers of two of the hijackers while they were in San Diego. This is based on information de-classified earlier this year, plus a LaRouchean investigation.


Hi metamars,

Now this is funny. It's been a while, but here we are now both posting today about this new information from Jeff Steinberg - "9/11 Cover Blown", almost at the same time in the same thread.
Take care!
Craig

[metamars]

Hi metamars,

Now this is funny. It's been a while, but here we are now both posting today about this new information from Jeff Steinberg - "9/11 Cover Blown", almost at the same time in the same thread.
Take care!
Craig

Small conspiracy world, eh? For the record,
1) I didn't know about your new thread until you posted about it in this one
2) You and I didn't conspire to create a Saudi news blitz

[T.A.M.]

See, this is the whole reason why 9/11 Trutherism is so frustrating.

There are some valid questions about the underlying support for al-Qaeda, i.e. who in the Saudi hierarchy supported them, did they know anything, was it just an individual here or there or was it whole ministries, etc. Let's not leap to conclusions without actual evidence, but these kinds of things are at least possible.

If true, these allegations also lay to rest ANY notion that anyone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, or that they were directed by elements rogue or otherwise in the US Government. Following this trail will take us farther from the realm of the Truth Movement, as science and logic usually does.

All this wild speculation about controlled demolitions, thermite, Leo Wanta, whatever only distracts and drags us further from a productive discussion. In fact, even in this thread we have people trying to extrapolate from possible Saudi support that the US supported bin Laden then, and even to this day. Stop that! It's stupid! I know you all want to polarize this discussion between "truth seekers" and "debunkers," but it just isn't that simple. What is polar, however, is the difference between "reasonable inquiry" and "wild speculation." If you're on the wrong side of that fence, then do something about it.

Perhaps we should make him a deal.

We will entertain the possibilities outlined, if he publicly proclaims that all facets of the MIHOP line of 9/11 truth are BOGUS and unfounded.

I would not hold my breath.

TAM;)

[metamars]

If true, these allegations also lay to rest ANY notion that anyone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, or that they were directed by elements rogue or otherwise in the US Government.

It took him a while, but the "the Dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY&feature=related)" finally figured out that the other Lebowski had given him a ringer. Thus, his buddy, Walter, threw out a "ringer for a ringer" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes).

If the daunting question before us is, "Was Saudi intelligence a 'ringer for a ringer'", i.e., proxies for American intelligence, "rogue or otherwise", somehow I don't think that can be settled definitively in an internet forum.

Could this be a reason why the 911 Truth movement has been calling for a serious re-investigation?

[carlitos]

Dude, wheels within wheels.

Who is going to head this "serious re-investigation," by the way?

[Wowbagger]

I have evidence that Osama Bin Laden celebrated his 9/11 victory, by enjoying a trip to Walt Disney World, with some family members. He went on all the rides, ate a bunch of hot dogs, and even got his photo taken with Mickey Mouse!

The evidence is that Disney's attendence took a dive, after that day, so there would be few witnesses to recognize him, and to deal with.

The government obviously told Disney to keep quiet about it.

What do you think? How does my bombshell compare to yours?

[boloboffin]

I have evidence that Osama Bin Laden celebrated his 9/11 victory, by enjoying a trip to Walt Disney World, with some family members. He went on all the rides, ate a bunch of hot dogs, and even got his photo taken with Mickey Mouse!

The evidence is that Disney's attendence took a dive, after that day, so there would be few witnesses to recognize him, and to deal with.

The government obviously told Disney to keep quiet about it.

What do you think? How does my bombshell compare to yours?

At least we haven't heard it before.

Of course, "Sibel Edmonds Says Same Thing She's Been Saying All Along On Radio Program" doesn't have the same kind of punch as the thread title, having only truth to recommend it.

[R.Mackey]

It took him a while, but the "the Dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY&feature=related)" finally figured out that the other Lebowski had given him a ringer. Thus, his buddy, Walter, threw out a "ringer for a ringer" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes).

If the daunting question before us is, "Was Saudi intelligence a 'ringer for a ringer'", i.e., proxies for American intelligence, "rogue or otherwise", somehow I don't think that can be settled definitively in an internet forum.

You won't read The Looming Tower, yet you'll unabashedly apply the wisdom gained from The Big Lebowski in a geopolitical context...

Could this be a reason why the 911 Truth movement has been calling for a serious re-investigation?

That none of you knows anything if you didn't see it in a movie? Could be.

[R.Mackey]

Perhaps we should make him a deal.

We will entertain the possibilities outlined, if he publicly proclaims that all facets of the MIHOP line of 9/11 truth are BOGUS and unfounded.

I've always been open to a "Deal." The deal is simple: Bring evidence. ;) Speculation isn't evidence.

So far, this thread has been real, real short on evidence.

[carlitos]

You won't read The Looming Tower, yet you'll unabashedly apply the wisdom gained from The Big Lebowski in a geopolitical context...The dude drank 9 White Russians in the movie, and Belarus shares the Struve Geodetic Arc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struve_Geodetic_Arc) with 9 countries ... AND ... 9 principalities of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania were settled by Belorussian ancestors ... wheels within wheels, dude. This thing runs deep. :)

[GreNME]

See, this is the whole reason why 9/11 Trutherism is so frustrating.

There are some valid questions about the underlying support for al-Qaeda, i.e. who in the Saudi hierarchy supported them, did they know anything, was it just an individual here or there or was it whole ministries, etc. Let's not leap to conclusions without actual evidence, but these kinds of things are at least possible.

If true, these allegations also lay to rest ANY notion that anyone other than al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, or that they were directed by elements rogue or otherwise in the US Government. Following this trail will take us farther from the realm of the Truth Movement, as science and logic usually does.

All this wild speculation about controlled demolitions, thermite, Leo Wanta, whatever only distracts and drags us further from a productive discussion. In fact, even in this thread we have people trying to extrapolate from possible Saudi support that the US supported bin Laden then, and even to this day. Stop that! It's stupid! I know you all want to polarize this discussion between "truth seekers" and "debunkers," but it just isn't that simple. What is polar, however, is the difference between "reasonable inquiry" and "wild speculation." If you're on the wrong side of that fence, then do something about it.

You see, the "truth" movement doesn't want to follow Saudi connections to see where they go, but to instead find connections between Saudis and the American government. That's their only goal with bringing up Saudis. Meanwhile, they ignore the Saudi interloping in pretty much any inflammations in the Mid-East all the way into Pakistan, instead laying the blame solely on US interventionalism-- indeed a policy that deserves criticism in several theaters-- because their own shallow imaginations and tendency to assume some all-inclusive conspiracy keep them from considering that anyone but Jews and rich Americans (and, sometimes, including the British royal family).

[BigAl]

You see, the "truth" movement doesn't want to follow Saudi connections to see where they go, but to instead find connections between Saudis and the American government. That's their only goal with bringing up Saudis. Meanwhile, they ignore the Saudi interloping in pretty much any inflammations in the Mid-East all the way into Pakistan, instead laying the blame solely on US interventionalism--


bin Laden put the Saudi royal family on his hit list right there with the US and carried out several effective attacks on the kingdom. The attacks ceased after the Saudi secret police did mass arrests and enought torturing to find out who else to arrest.

[Bobert]

Sorry but if Bin Laden has done all this secret work for the US Government then why has he not come out and verified this?
If this nonsense was true certainly it would benefit him to come out and say this and provide the proof of this.

[stateofgrace]

Sorry but if Bin Laden has done all this secret work for the US Government then why has he not come out and verified this?
If this nonsense was true certainly it would benefit him to come out and say this and provide the proof of this.

I asked basically the same question on page one of this thread, to date I have not had an answer.

Strange that, eh?

[johnny karate]

It took him a while, but the "the Dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY&feature=related)" finally figured out that the other Lebowski had given him a ringer. Thus, his buddy, Walter, threw out a "ringer for a ringer" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes).

If the daunting question before us is, "Was Saudi intelligence a 'ringer for a ringer'", i.e., proxies for American intelligence, "rogue or otherwise", somehow I don't think that can be settled definitively in an internet forum.

Could this be a reason why the 911 Truth movement has been calling for a serious re-investigation?

No.

[progge]

You see, the "truth" movement doesn't want to follow Saudi connections to see where they go, but to instead find connections between Saudis and the American government. That's their only goal with bringing up Saudis. Meanwhile, they ignore the Saudi interloping in pretty much any inflammations in the Mid-East all the way into Pakistan, instead laying the blame solely on US interventionalism-- indeed a policy that deserves criticism in several theaters-- because their own shallow imaginations and tendency to assume some all-inclusive conspiracy keep them from considering that anyone but Jews and rich Americans (and, sometimes, including the British royal family).


The static concept of the enemy is just one part (or the second step) of the explanation why some/many truthers tend to draw one and the same conclusion from very different sets of facts. The other part (or the first step) is that some/many truthers - and some debunkers, too - tend to reduce complex scenarios and constellations to simple scenarios and constellations, which generally includes polarization. E.g. either the 9/11 CR is a great piece of research or a piece of crap; either the NIST writings are awesome examples of technical reporting or they are a cover up of demolition; either CIA knew the whole 9/11 plot in advance or can´t be called to account for anything bad; etc.

Now, take complex constellations like this: Four parties - Sovjet invaders, Afhgan Mujahideen, UBL, CIA -, which means four lines of interests and plans, colliding and fusing here and there. This is too much, it needs complexity reduction! Therefore, reduce the parties, lump together Afghan Mujahideen, UBL and CIA, and you have a wonderful, simple picture you can use to spread claims every simple mind can follow.
The same goes for the question of hijacker financing. If you start research about the Saudi Royal family and you do not arrive at CIA HQ, but just at the Saudi Royal family, while the CIA is another and very different line in the whole picture, then you just got a picture which is waaaay too complex to work with - at least for the case you are interested in spreading propaganda. And some/many truthers seem to have a vast interest in spreading propaganda.

Therefore, ISI means CIA, UBL means CIA, and House of Saud means CIA. Or, to put it even simpler, it´s just all NWO.


It took him a while, but the "the Dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY&feature=related)" finally figured out that the other Lebowski had given him a ringer. Thus, his buddy, Walter, threw out a "ringer for a ringer" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes).

If the daunting question before us is, "Was Saudi intelligence a 'ringer for a ringer'", i.e., proxies for American intelligence, "rogue or otherwise", somehow I don't think that can be settled definitively in an internet forum.

Could this be a reason why the 911 Truth movement has been calling for a serious re-investigation?


This is just one random example for the above observation.

[stateofgrace]

Perhaps because they share my view that JREF is a bastion of half-wits and misanthropes?

A better question, I suppose, is why do I post here? I'm not entirely sure, actually - to a large extent, I view this as a form of entertainment, though not of a very uplifting kind. I mean, the endless parade of half-wits congratulating themselves for (from my perspective) failing to connect dots or posit plausible explanations with the same facility as a 10 year old, provides an endless 'rubber-necking delay' kind of diversion.

On the positive side, if one is willing to look past the crap, some good information and arguments gets posted by debunkers. Some.

Well I for one want to thank you. Thank you very much for gracing us mere mortals with your superior presence. It must be so difficult for you being the most intelligent person on the planet and having to deal with all those nasty half wits everyday.

Oh and don't take any notice of the rest of the meanies that post here and simply destroy your fantasies everyday, you have my eternal gratitude just for being here. Your words of wisdom light me up every time and take my breath away. Thank you very much, oh great one, I know when I am in the presence of greatness and I am honoured to actually post in the same thread that you started.

Could you please respond, oh greatness, even to call me an half wit or any other lame insult of your choice, it is would give me such a thrill to be acknowledged by such a superior being as yourself.

Thank you very much, oh great one.

[twinstead]

What metamars doesn't realize is that his reception on this forum is indicative of what his "movement's" reception will be, and has been, in the "real world". I guess JREF is "The Man". Down with The Man. Power to the People!!!111111!!!!

[Bobert]

Jref rocks!

[jacque]

*mutters* Took me long enough to figure how to do simple GIF animations in Fireworks CS4...

Anyway...

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/tim-osman-memo-comparison.gif

I've highlighted areas of interest. In the 911myths.com version (the one with less crap on it), the entire top portion of the document has obviously been replaced.

Additionally, throughout the image you can see areas where lines have crossed words in Senenmut's version, but weren't removed in the 911myths.com version.

You can also see that in certain other areas, parts of text have been removed along with the markings where the two come very close.

ETA: As a note, I didn't have to do any repositioning to get these images to line up. They fit each other perfectly.

Not to say Senenmut's version is legit, or even the original. It's just that it seems the version on 911myths.com has been altered from the version Senenmut posted.
Hi-
I am a woman and sorry if you have a problem with believing what I say but I origianly saw that document in Michael Riconosciuto's files. It was meant to be just a part of his defense in the drug case that put him in prison. We (Mike, etc) were dealing with a huge amount of information then.
I wonder where you got the copy of the document? Is it on Stew Webb's site?
Mike's documents are floating around all over the place.
I can only tell you that when I was helping with the papers (faxing, mailing, etc) and hearing all the information, I felt it was true.
Mike is an interesting guy- definitely a genius.
What is true or not----among those of us who were caught up in this, I can say with no hesitation, no one knows for sure, but a lot of the stuff was confirmed by his father, Marshall
Now gunderson's stories--that is another matter. He sure did not seem to be doing Mike no favors.

[metamars]

Therefore, ISI means CIA, UBL means CIA, and House of Saud means CIA. Or, to put it even simpler, it´s just all NWO.


This is just one random example for the above observation.

Wow. If you were at all familiar with my postings at JREF, you'd know that I often lament how simple-minded the so-called "debunkers" are. (It's fair to say that that's true of some truthers, also.) If you don't believe this, you can search for threads that I posted in, e.g., concerning the failure/corruption of the media. That was a particularly rich mother lode of postings where we can see, time after time, "debunkers" assuming that either we have, as options, "everybody in on it" (meaning reporters) or can't be true.

This idiotic tendency to simplify, and overlook plausible possibilities that, in a suitably translated situation, 10-year-olds could figure out (having observed Saturday morning cartoon plot lines since the age of 6, wherein betrayal and subterfuge are portrayed and understood), is the provenance of hostile debunkers. (OK, some hostile debunkers.) As a propaganda technique, it's useful (at least when targeting the shallow of mind), because it allows for the easy generation of strawmen. As a means for the shallow of mind to satisfy their desire to argue, and constrained by their abortive thought processes, so that they can believe that they have (once again) won an argument, it is also useful. Like other emotional argumentation (say concerning politics and religion), the "winner" of an argument is usually a foregone conclusion. Both sides win - in their own minds.

Not only have I never claimed that, e.g., "ISI means CIA", I doubt that most other 911 truthers believe that, either.

If some faction of the ISI cooperates with some faction of the CIA, in the end perpetrating what amounts to treason against the United States (on the part of the CIA members, I mean), it would be wrong not to have pursued that line of inquiry.

If some faction of the ISI cooperates with some faction of the CIA, in the end realizing that they have gotten played by a Bin Laden that they were cooperating with just yesterday, to de-stabilize China, it would be wrong not to have pursued that line of inquiry.

Whether or not that Bin Laden and his associates were protected by a rogue faction of Saudi intelligence, by Saudi intelligence at the highest level, or not protected by Saudi intelligence, at all.

How's that for complexity, progge? Shall I count the permutations I've laid out above, or shall you?

Now, figuring which permutation, of all the permuations, not just those laid out above, is closest to the truth is not something that is going to happen on an internet forum. Not with any finality. Figuring it out in a way that honors the American public, whether or not a whole bunch of American spooks get identified at traitors or just saps, is something that will require state power.

Quite a problem when the suspects of many of those permuations are state actors! But don't tell the debunkers that! You'll be wasting your breath, even though their 10-year-old children could have pointed it out to them.

Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.

[kameelyun]

You anti-truthers are traitors to this country.

[progge]

Wow. If you were at all familiar with my postings at JREF, you'd know that I often lament how simple-minded the so-called "debunkers" are. (It's fair to say that that's true of some truthers, also.) If you don't believe this, you can search for threads that I posted in, e.g., concerning the failure/corruption of the media. [Snipped examples of debunker simplification.]

You´re no friend of simplifications and polarization, I understand. But then, why such a misleading post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4961307#post4961307)? I mean, there are speculations, backed up by some evidence, that at least two of the 9/11 terrorists were financially supported by Saudi royals. Now you seriously try to make plausible the demand for a new investigation on the ground of these speculations, but (and that´s the point) as an investigation which is focused on the possibility that the Saudis were “proxies for American intelligence”. Which means you add other speculations to speculations, and this time not even backed up by some evidence, just because it´s a logical possibility (or based on kinda anecdotal evidence).

However, such pure possibilities are not enough for the demand of a new 9/11 investigation. (The same goes for the ISI-CIA connections, and alleged UBL-CIA connections.)

The second misleading point in your post was that you connect the Saudi-CIA-links to the truth movement´s call for a new investigation, while Saudi intelligence is just a minor topic among people in the 9/11 truth movement. Rather it´s a major topic for those people who are calling for a new investigation from outside the 9/11 truth movement, i.e. people who support neither CD, nor Pentagon flyover, nor a Shanksville shootdown, nor alive hijackers etc. People, who accept the official narrative in its rough form, but want to add some details and move emphasis from one point to another. (E.g., Robert Baer, or some members of the 9/11 commission staff.)

Anyway, since I´m unfamiliar with your postings here at JREF, I do not insist on calling your posting the simplification of the type I was speaking about. It was misleading, nonetheless.


Not only have I never claimed that, e.g., "ISI means CIA", I doubt that most other 911 truthers believe that, either.

Come on … Have you ever seen/heard a truther who calls for an investigation into hijacker (Atta)-ISI-links without the CIA at the back of him/her mind? Such truthers are a minority, as far as I can see.


[Snipped the permutations]
Now, figuring which permutation, of all the permuations, not just those laid out above, is closest to the truth is not something that is going to happen on an internet forum. Not with any finality. Figuring it out in a way that honors the American public, whether or not a whole bunch of American spooks get identified at traitors or just saps, is something that will require state power.

Quite a problem when the suspects of many of those permuations are state actors! But don't tell the debunkers that! You'll be wasting your breath, even though their 10-year-old children could have pointed it out to them.

Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.

A re-investigation is essential if and only if it´s backed up by evidence showing serious lacks in the investigations done so far. Pure possibilities are no serious lacks. Possibilities are endless, serious lacks aren´t.

[boloboffin]

You anti-truthers are traitors to this country.

Hi, kameelyun! You are the kameelyun that posts at 911blogger, aren't you? I didn't know you were a JREFfer as well! Mind you don't droll on the floor, or at least keep a towel handy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The ACLU didn't call her the "most gagged" woman in the history of this country for nothing.

Did you just say "ACLU"? ;)

vyesNstdG04

[Pardalis]

Hi-
I am a woman

You're a woman and you chose "Jacque" for a username?

[T.A.M.]

Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.

You know sometimes I wish you would get your godamn investigation just so you'd shut the **** up with your ridiculous bullcrap.


The trouble is that short of a David Ray Griffin led, Steven Jones organized investigation, neither you or any of the truther dingleheads, will be satisfied.

So SCREW YOUR NEW INVESTIGATION!

TAM:D

[16.5]

You anti-truthers are traitors to this country.

Anti-truthers? Tht is very clever! You do realize that the word "truther" is the punch line to a very bad joke, don't you?

I like Government Loyalist, myself

[newton3376]

There is a Flash movie under development at Warners, but it is on the back burner while the front burner is occupied by the Green Lantern film and the Superman Reboot.
Jonah Hex looks great, though.The stills are impressive.

Sweet....I hope they make that Flash movie...

[newton3376]

Yeah, I'm sure the CIA was going to share operational details with a newly hired FBI translator who had a handful of low-level security clearances (compared to what the CIA normally has) . :rolleyes:

Mike Malloy will believe any conspiracy theory that comes down the road. He marks Art Bell look like a cynic.

You are likely correct....A lot of CIA programs are at the SCI level and are also SAPs.

I would assume a newly hired FBI translator would not have such clearances...

[metamars]

You´re no friend of simplifications and polarization, I understand. But then, why such a misleading post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4961307#post4961307)?

The title of that post is "It ain't necessarily so". I suggested only one of the 'permutations' (scenarios), delineated in post 181, but when you want to contradict a universal statement, all you need is 1 counter-examples. Re-read Mackey's statement, that I quoted, and notice that he emphasized the word "ANY".

Besides that, The Big Lebowski is an awfully funny movie. If I indirectly give them a plug, can't be a bad thing. :D


I mean, there are speculations, backed up by some evidence, that at least two of the 9/11 terrorists were financially supported by Saudi royals. Now you seriously try to make plausible the demand for a new investigation on the ground of these speculations, but (and that´s the point) as an investigation which is focused on the possibility that the Saudis were “proxies for American intelligence”.

Or, in fact, any of the scenarios post 181, plus who knows how many other scenarios?


Which means you add other speculations to speculations, and this time not even backed up by some evidence, just because it´s a logical possibility (or based on kinda anecdotal evidence).

I'm not actually sure about the quality of the LaRouche paper, I give you that. The fact that it is partly based on recently declassified papers is uncontroversial, right? But beyond that, it's not like I'm actually an authority on Saudi intelligence, and am qualified to evaluate the paper.

For that matter, how can I be sure of Sibel Edmonds' claims, unless state power is used to produce the proof, which she has assured us would be easy to do?

One thing I'm sure of is that investigations are iterative processes, and they depend on testing and investigating hypotheses - call them "speculations" if you like. I'm deeply distrustful of people who pretend to know what an investigation would yield, but who won't allow their minds to raise even the most obvious of questions.


However, such pure possibilities are not enough for the demand of a new 9/11 investigation.
(The same goes for the ISI-CIA connections, and alleged UBL-CIA connections.) Actually, they don't need to be enough. They need to be enough, together with all the other facts and reports that contradict the official tales, that have not been shown to be completely without merit.


Having said that, if all there was in the 911 conspiracy theory literature was Edmonds claims, given the US Congressmen who have vouched for her, that is quite enough for me to call for another investigation.

The second misleading point in your post was that you connect the Saudi-CIA-links to the truth movement´s call for a new investigation, while Saudi intelligence is just a minor topic among people in the 9/11 truth movement. Rather it´s a major topic for those people who are calling for a new investigation from outside the 9/11 truth movement, i.e. people who support neither CD, nor Pentagon flyover, nor a Shanksville shootdown, nor alive hijackers etc.

I defy you to find more that a handful of 911 Truthers who, if you asked them "Would you support a full re-investigation into 911, include any possible Saudi intelligence connections?", would say "no". In fact, I defy you to produce more than a handful of 911 Truther who, if you asked them, "Would you support a full re-investigation of just possible Saudi intelligence connections to 911?", would say "no".

If some of the 911 street activists chant "911 was an inside job", or typically present other other lines of argument, so what? They don't represent everybody in the movement. Furthermore, who even knows why any given 911 truther focusses on one thing, rather than another? Personally, I don't particularly care.

Come on … Have you ever seen/heard a truther who calls for an investigation into hijacker (Atta)-ISI-links without the CIA at the back of him/her mind? Ah, how am I supposed to see what's in the back of anybody's mind?

Besides which, besides about 4 events in NYC, I don't hang out with 911 Truth activists. I've met quite a few people (non-activists) who don't buy the government's BS, but we didn't really discuss it much. However, I don't recall anybody mentioning the CIA. I recall a local fellow wondering how a plane could go through a small hole in the Pentagon, so I explained about the series of ring walls. So, maybe quite a few have swallowed CIA disinformation, but of the few souls that I've discussed this with in person, I honestly don't recall anybody mentioning the CIA. :)


A re-investigation is essential if and only if it´s backed up by evidence showing serious lacks in the investigations done so far. Pure possibilities are no serious lacks. Possibilities are endless, serious lacks aren´t.

"pure possibilities" is your framing, not mine. Tell me, do you think Senator Leahy would describe Sibel Edmonds latest bombshell claim as a "pure possibility"?

[A W Smith]

????

so I explained about the series of ring walls.

what "series of ring walls?"

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2061604&postcount=527

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I wonder where you got the copy of the document? Is it on Stew Webb's site?


There's essentially two copies here.

The one from 911myths.com I snagged from the Tim Osman was bin Laden? (http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html) page. Apparently the image on that page was itself snagged from a page on stewwebb.com (http://www.stewwebb.com/Division%204%20team%20names%20Clintons,%20Bush%204 1,%2043%20in%20JFK%20Jr.htm); an article written by Tom Flocco. (Direct link to image on stewwebb.com (http://www.stewwebb.com/Tom%20Laden%20Gunderson%20Stinger%20Missiles.jpg))

As for the one Senenmut posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4959052#post4959052), I have no idea where he got it.

[Bobert]

I like Government Loyalist, myself
HAHAHAHA yes!!

[JoeyDonuts]

You're a woman and you chose "Jacque" for a username?

Ah...I know you're French Canadian so you might see this as odd.

One of my first girlfriends spelled her name that way. Pronounced "Jackie" down here. Not necessarily an oddity. Chalk it up to cultural differences.

As to her claims, well...I'm always suspect of anyone that says "I know this was true because I personally saw the files myself!!!" Brings back shades of He Who Must Not Be Named On This Forum. If they had first-hand eyewitness knowledge of the string that would unravel the whole official version of events, they wouldn't be on a skeptic's forum almost ten years after the fact bragging about it.

The other thing a lot of truthers don't get is there is no "single point of failure" for the official 9/11 story. It's the result of thousands and thousands of man-hours worth of research, investigation, intelligence gathering, and military operations conducted by multiple different agencies, all of whose conclusions pointed in the direction of the official story.

You could just hand-wave away any organization with government connections, but that begs the question - what makes an authoritative piece of evidence? Is it enough to have "Dr." before your name? Seems to be with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Dr. Jones. Dr. Griffin. Dr. Wood. It goes on and on and on, and not in the epic Journey bringin-the-house-down kinda way. Rather like that damned jukebox that won't stop skipping.

[ref]

What a weird thread this is.

[Galileo]

I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.

[ref]

I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.

What a weird comment this is.

[JoeyDonuts]

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.

Oh, I agree. Put her right up there with April Gallop, Cynthia McKinney, Judy Wood, Shirley Phelps-Roeper, Tokyo Rose, Sylvia Browne and Miss Cleo.

Good company all around.

[tsig]

I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.

You are aware of the end to that story?

[beachnut]

Wow. ... I often lament how simple-minded the so-called "debunkers" are. ...

This idiotic tendency to simplify, ...
...
Hence, as annoying as the "911 was an inside job" mantra may be, the companion meme of calling for a serious re-investigation is not only not annoying, it is essential to get to the bottom of things. Not likely to happen, but that is another matter.

Your disjointed movement has the delusions not backed with facts and evidence. Your delusional movement failed at the science and now presents more failed ideas. Being simple-minded is what it takes to believe the lies your movement pushes. Next time bring evidence instead of hearsay. The idiotic tendency of the "truth" (delusion) movement is to manufacture the next bombshell/smoking gun/loaded gun failed statement. The thing that needs "re-investigation" is the cause of your movement's paranoid delusions. How do you get so excited about the tripe your movement makes up?

[JoeyDonuts]

Your disjointed movement has the delusions not backed with facts and evidence. Your delusional movement failed at the science and now presents more failed ideas. Being simple-minded is what it takes to believe the lies your movement pushes. Next time bring evidence instead of hearsay. The idiotic tendency of the "truth" (delusion) movement is to manufacture the next bombshell/smoking gun/loaded gun failed statement. The thing that needs "re-investigation" is the cause of your movement's paranoid delusions. How do you get so excited about the tripe your movement makes up?

Wow. I forget sometimes you were SAC. That was a carpet-bombing of a post. :)

[progge]

The title of that post is "It ain't necessarily so". I suggested only one of the 'permutations' (scenarios), delineated in post 181, but when you want to contradict a universal statement, all you need is 1 counter-examples. Re-read Mackey's statement, that I quoted, and notice that he emphasized the word "ANY".

I took exception by other points of your posting. I totally agree that Saudi involvement not necessarily excludes US involvement in the planning or financing of the 9/11 attacks.
But again, that "something is not necessarily excluded" is a pointless statement. Chinese involvement, Russian involvement, Qatar involvement, Iranian involvement, Israeli involvement isn´t excluded, too. Who cares?


I'm not actually sure about the quality of the LaRouche paper, I give you that. The fact that it is partly based on recently declassified papers is uncontroversial, right?

Yes, see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4961263&postcount=20).


For that matter, how can I be sure of Sibel Edmonds' claims, unless state power is used to produce the proof, which she has assured us would be easy to do?

You´re putting the card before the horse. It´s not state power, it´s Sibel Edmonds who has to provide proof, she made a claim. At least she has to substantiate her claims: Who told her, when was she told, where was she told, what exactly were/are the ties between UBL and the US – things like that. Her interview (http://letsibeledmondsspeak.blogspot.com/2009/07/sibel-edmonds-on-mike-malloy.html) is one large whistle in the dark.


One thing I'm sure of is that investigations are iterative processes, and they depend on testing and investigating hypotheses - call them "speculations" if you like. I'm deeply distrustful of people who pretend to know what an investigation would yield, but who won't allow their minds to raise even the most obvious of questions.

Um, OK. The problem is that these “most obvious questions” are not seen as “most obvious questions” by many people, and they are not seen as “most obvious questions” because you (and the whole 9/11 TM) didn´t show why they should be seen as “most obvious questions”. They are just ... questions.


Actually, they don't need to be enough. They need to be enough, together with all the other facts and reports that contradict the official tales, that have not been shown to be completely without merit.

Don´t know which facts and reports you mean. Probably a topic for other threads.


Having said that, if all there was in the 911 conspiracy theory literature was Edmonds claims, given the US Congressmen who have vouched for her, that is quite enough for me to call for another investigation.

Your standards of buying into something do not seem too high, but I´m glad you´re honest about that.
Let me say, if Edmonds could substantiate her claim in the way described above, and specify which documents she refers to, what the status of these documents is (intelligence reports, whistleblower notes, a US-UBL cooperation contract signed by al-Zawahiri and Reagan, whatever), that would be a good way to force me calling out for an investigation into this issue. By now, she just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.


I defy you to find more that a handful of 911 Truthers who, if you asked them "Would you support a full re-investigation into 911, include any possible Saudi intelligence connections?", would say "no". In fact, I defy you to produce more than a handful of 911 Truther who, if you asked them, "Would you support a full re-investigation of just possible Saudi intelligence connections to 911?", would say "no".

Of course, there are no such 9/11 truthers, for obvious reasons. I defy you to show me a handful of important truther webpages/videos where Saudi intelligence connections to the hijackers are presented as central to the 9/11 plot.


Ah, how am I supposed to see what's in the back of anybody's mind?

Easy, by looking at the claims and questions, i.e. the webpages/movies/books.
E.g., look here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598) or here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html) or here (http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249293363&sr=8-1) or here (http://www.amazon.com/War-Freedom-America-Attacked-September/dp/0930852400).


Besides which, besides about 4 events in NYC, I don't hang out with 911 Truth activists. I've met quite a few people (non-activists) who don't buy the government's BS, but we didn't really discuss it much. However, I don't recall anybody mentioning the CIA.

I do not think it´s significant what a few activists you personally met did or didn´t say.
Besides that (and to equally strenghten an anecdotal case), we seem to have totally different experiences. Unlike you I never met a truther in real life, just a few people who mistrusted official explanations, were unsettled about 9/11 by this or that book, were asking honest questions – no problem with all that; but I discussed with “real” truthers on three different (German) internet platforms, and when it comes to 9/11 initiators it´s all about intelligence services, especially CIA, and a fortiori in the Atta-ISI case. (If you need an example: This (http://www.broeckers.com/scheichegal.htm) is a prototypic German essay on the handler issue; every truther in this country seems to love and link it.)


"pure possibilities" is your framing, not mine. Tell me, do you think Senator Leahy would describe Sibel Edmonds latest bombshell claim as a "pure possibility"?

Probably not. But what does it matter? As long as there´s no evidence it´s not more than a possibility.

[FineWine]

I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.


See, there's the problem. There were, of course, very few flat-earthers in the 16th century. The people who were challenging you spoke Italian, and you don't. As you couldn't understand a word they were saying, a certain amount of confusion is to be expected. Notice that nowadays people speak English to you, and you still don't understand anything.

Before you thank Sibel, shouldn't you have at least a clue as to what she's saying? When you decipher her message, be sure to fill us in.

I do like your theory that Sibel hears voices in her head. It would explain a great deal.

Hey, that blockbuster about the sooperdoopernanothermite has really set the scientific world on fire. Are Jones and his accomplices almost ready to submit their "work" to an independent lab? Oh, really? How many months did you say?

[Klimax]

Wow. I forget sometimes you were SAC. That was a carpet-bombing of a post. :)

SAC = Supreme air command?
SAC = Senior Aircraftman?

[dtugg]

nevermind

[Galileo]

See, there's the problem. There were, of course, very few flat-earthers in the 16th century.



Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.

[twinstead]

Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.

Well, among the educated NOW there's only a tiny, tiny minority who believe 911 was an inside job. It's when you get to the uneducated and illiterate is where you start finding what few other truthers there are.

[Justin39640]

Wrong.

Among the educated there were few, but among the uneducated and illiterate, there were many. You have been duped.

Gutenberg i think solved that issue
you notice were all typing here
youre also arguing with people who are far from uneducated

[dudalb]

I have never seen such a pathetic reaction to the truth since the flat-earthers challenged me back in the 16th century.

I thank brave Sibel for her courage to speak the truth.

Sibel is the greatest symbol for truth since Joan of Arc.


I have now joined the "Galileo Is A Troll Just Trying to Piss Us Off" school of thought.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404a7757c154cee.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17115)

[tsig]

SAC = Supreme air command?
SAC = Senior Aircraftman?

Strategic Air Command. aka Ballistic Air Group

[twinstead]

Sibel? Joan of Arc?

Jesus.

[T.A.M.]

Sibel? Joan of Arc?

Jesus.

Sibel is to Joan of Arc

As

BTK is to Jesus

TAM:D

[Senenmut]

Hi-
I am a woman and sorry if you have a problem with believing what I say but I origianly saw that document in Michael Riconosciuto's files. It was meant to be just a part of his defense in the drug case that put him in prison. We (Mike, etc) were dealing with a huge amount of information then.
I wonder where you got the copy of the document? Is it on Stew Webb's site?
Mike's documents are floating around all over the place.
I can only tell you that when I was helping with the papers (faxing, mailing, etc) and hearing all the information, I felt it was true.
Mike is an interesting guy- definitely a genius.
What is true or not----among those of us who were caught up in this, I can say with no hesitation, no one knows for sure, but a lot of the stuff was confirmed by his father, Marshall
Now gunderson's stories--that is another matter. He sure did not seem to be doing Mike no favors.

do u still have these documents? how are u attached to this? i only have read about two cases where Michael Riconosciuto's files were found. carol marshall, the author of the last circle, and the canadian royal mounted police. the story goes the canadians came down and did some investigation into promis. this is some of what they said they found:


http://www.stewwebb.com/Ted%20Gunderson%20Nothing%20is%20Secret%20by%20Kel ly%20Patricia%20O%20Meara.html

"Then," continues Seymour, "he said something that was just really out there. He stood in my dining room with a straight face and told us that ... more than one presidential administration will be exposed for their knowledge of the PROMIS software transactions. He said that high-ranking Canadian government officials may have unlawfully purchased the PROMIS software from high-ranking U.S. government officials in the Reagan/Bush administration, and he further stated that the RCMP has located numerous banks around the world that have been used by these U.S. officials to launder the money from the sale of the PROMIS software." Seymour was stunned. "First," she says, "I wondered if this guy was for real and, second, did he have something against Republicans." Just when she thought things couldn't get any weirder, "McDade detailed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico attended by the heads of the intelligence divisions of the U.S. [CIA], Great Britain [MI6], Israel [Mossad] and Canada [CSIS]. McDade said the topic of the discussion was UNIQUE ELEMENTS, and that during this meeting it allegedly was revealed that all four allied nations share computer systems and have for years. The meeting was called after a glitch was found in a British computer system that had caused the loss of historical case data."

McDade continued with this scenario by telling the astonished group: "The Israeli Mossad may have modified the original PROMIS modification [the first back door] so it became a two-way back door, allowing the Israelis access to top U.S. weapons secrets at Los Alamos and other classified installations. The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States." According to Seymour, he concluded by saying that "the Jonathan Pollard [spy] case is insignificant by comparison to the current crisis."

i have no idea if this info is true or not but it is very interesting considering that i showed yall the mossad did have promis from gideons spies.

[carlitos]

Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.

[JoeyDonuts]

Sibel is to Joan of Arc

As

BTK is to Jesus

TAM:D

Wowzers, that's harsh.

Funny, but harsh.

[Justin39640]

Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/DarkHorizon/admin/img/homer_doh.png

[tsig]

Senenmut, I have to be honest and say that I can't exactly tell where you are coming from. But, just one friendly piece of advice. Do you see the text that you quoted, the words that you are using to support your argument? Do you notice that these bits of text use capitalization, sentence structure and correct spelling? Those bits look a little more convincing than the stuff you write. Respectfully, try standard English.

I don't know what is it with these folk. I have to ignore red letters to post misspelled words. How can you spread the truth if you do not communicate?

[Klimax]

Strategic Air Command. aka Ballistic Air Group

I knew I missed third word for use...

SAC = BAG? Good... :D

[tsig]

I knew I missed third word for use...

SAC = BAG? Good... :D

We made beechnut obsolete. :p

[T.A.M.]

Wowzers, that's harsh.

Funny, but harsh.

yah i know, but my point was not so much that Sibel is like BTK (notice that is not the comparison), but rather that there is an ifinitum of difference between JOA and Sibel, just as there is between BTK and Jesus.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

So, from the amount of noise it's made, was this bombshell filled with the same stuff that blew up the Twin Towers?

Dave

[jacque]

do u still have these documents? how are u attached to this? i only have read about two cases where Michael Riconosciuto's files were found. carol marshall, the author of the last circle, and the canadian royal mounted police. the story goes the canadians came down and did some investigation into promis. this is some of what they said they found:


http://www.stewwebb.com/Ted%20Gunderson%20Nothing%20is%20Secret%20by%20Kel ly%20Patricia%20O%20Meara.html

"Then," continues Seymour, "he said something that was just really out there. He stood in my dining room with a straight face and told us that ... more than one presidential administration will be exposed for their knowledge of the PROMIS software transactions. He said that high-ranking Canadian government officials may have unlawfully purchased the PROMIS software from high-ranking U.S. government officials in the Reagan/Bush administration, and he further stated that the RCMP has located numerous banks around the world that have been used by these U.S. officials to launder the money from the sale of the PROMIS software." Seymour was stunned. "First," she says, "I wondered if this guy was for real and, second, did he have something against Republicans." Just when she thought things couldn't get any weirder, "McDade detailed a December 1999 meeting at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico attended by the heads of the intelligence divisions of the U.S. [CIA], Great Britain [MI6], Israel [Mossad] and Canada [CSIS]. McDade said the topic of the discussion was UNIQUE ELEMENTS, and that during this meeting it allegedly was revealed that all four allied nations share computer systems and have for years. The meeting was called after a glitch was found in a British computer system that had caused the loss of historical case data."

McDade continued with this scenario by telling the astonished group: "The Israeli Mossad may have modified the original PROMIS modification [the first back door] so it became a two-way back door, allowing the Israelis access to top U.S. weapons secrets at Los Alamos and other classified installations. The Israelis may now possess all the nuclear secrets of the United States." According to Seymour, he concluded by saying that "the Jonathan Pollard [spy] case is insignificant by comparison to the current crisis."

i have no idea if this info is true or not but it is very interesting considering that i showed yall the mossad did have promis from gideons spies.





FYI gunderson was interested in my case, a child abuse case, and he wormed his way into my life. It is a long story but he ended up working out of my house and because of illness, I quit my job and answered phone calls, sent out mail (whatever it was he was doing) and did research for him for a while.
Cheri Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael. She has a very fertile imagination. I still don't know what her reason was for writing what she did. Some is true some is not. I didn't know everything that was going on-thank God.
I threw gunderson out in 1993 and moved. He took us for almost every dime we (my 2 children and I) had, so I was unable to follow up on anything for years.
I had all of the files at my place-we were putting them together for Michael's defense.
I don't know why gunderson would have his webmaster (Chris Jones) now in prison for molesting little boys) would post that particular paper...but then you can never expect to figure out why a psycho does anything..

[SteveAustin]

Do any of you people ever lift a finger to do any real research?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_CIA_links

WOW, to borrow a term...that's some fine investigoogling there!!!

Is that what you call real research?

you accuse "truthers" of not doing real research, in this case because it was an internet link, then you counter it with another internet link and at the same time smear the "truther" for not doing "real research"

[SteveAustin]

Notice how you "truthers" get caught in silly lies. You pretend, unconvincingly, that you've already read the 9/11myths discussion. Yet, you post the garbled piece of paper that shows nothing in particular. What are you expecting? Osama has said repeatedly that he had no contacts with the Americans.

LOL, maybe because that would break his cover!!! Duh!

[BigAl]

LOL, maybe because that would break his cover!!! Duh!

There is no evidence that Osama was ever an agent of the US.

There is lots of evidence that he wasn't.

[ElMondoHummus]

I read The Looming Tower.

Edmonds' claim does track with the Scheuer contradiction (publicly stated concern about Bin Laden while Alec Station protected al Qaeda operatives behind the scenes). The Scheuer contradiction included the NSA and the FBI ITOS as well.


This assertion - that Alec Station "protected" al Qaeda operatives - is erroneous and in contradiction to Scheuer's own statements and complaints. Unless you misinterpret US government's incompetence in following up on the intelligence and lack of aggressiveness at targeting bin Laden as "protection". But that would be an ironic use of the term, not a literal one. Regardless, you're wrong, and in contradiction to the very person you cite.


Scheuer interviewed Steve Coll on Book TV a few months ago. Coll was on to discuss his book The Bin Ladens. At one point in the interview Scheuer said that the public didn't understand that before 9/11 the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views of Bin Laden/al Qaeda. One, this is suggestive of state sponsorship. Two, it is contrary to the notion that Bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. Three, it cast doubt on the US/Saudi friendship.



During the Afghan wars, bin Laden did indeed function with the consent of the Saudi government, going so far as to deliver money from the Saudi government to the Afghan Mujahadeen, even though bin Laden was primarily known as a self financer. The money and connection to Prince Turki served as an "in" to the world of the Afghan resistance. Turki in turn used bin Laden to recruit Arabs to the Afghan cause. But this is all specific to the Afghan-Soviet conflict. Presuming that any connection beyond that invalidates "the notion that bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family" is erroneous, and contradicted by established history, some of which was stated by Scheuer and, separately, much of which was published in The Looming Tower. Since you read this book, you'll of course recall the chapter where the relationship between Turki and Osama started to sour over bin Laden's grandoise plan for overthrowing the Yemeni government. You'll also recall that the Saudi government directly ordered him not to meddle in Yemen's affairs, and that he defied them, embarassing the government to the point where Prince Naif demanded his passport to prevent him from travelling outside the country again.

You'll also recall later chapters where his falling out with the Saudi government became complete over the first Gulf war, where bin Laden was in the minority that recognized Saddam Hussein's threat but was angered at the Saudi government's reliance on America's military for protection. Which was in contradiction to bin Laden's desire to raise an army from friends he made during the Afghan wars along with unemployed Saudis.

You'll also recall from your reading that bin Laden openly defied Prince Turki's plans to elevate one of the Afghan warlords to dominance, which indirectly lead to another warlord - the famous Shah Massoud - launching an attack touched off the Afghan civil war. Which made him an open enemy of Prince Turki, as well as someone who through his actions opposed Saudi government policy.

And to top it all off, you must recall the various parts in the book where Osama's antagonism towards the Saudi government for allowing US troops on Saudi "soil" became complete, and he started contemplating a coup to overthrow that government. As well as the parts where the Saudi king was so upset at bin Laden's agitations against the government that he ordered Turki to "bring this man to heel", and had the Interior Ministry order the bin Laden family to cut off support to him.

In light of all these details that were published in Looming Tower, it's a mystery why you would assert that Saudi protection was contrary to the notion that bin Laden was an enemy of the Saudi royal family. The book clearly lays out the path from cooperation to antagonism, and also describes how bin Laden indeed become an enemy of the Saudi government, as well as why. When you read Scheuer, you must realize that his filter is that much of the West misunderstands the Middle East, which is an accurate statement. But your statement - "the public didn't understand that before 9/11, the Saudis protected Bin Laden. This contradicts some publicly stated views..." you fail to realize that this is correcting public misperceptions about the origins of bin Laden. It's not refuting the fact that bin Laden eventually grew to hate and work against the Saudi government.


It sure looks like US intelligence agencies were given orders to back off Saudi linked terrorist organizations. In light of Scheuer's comment this means orders to back off al Qaeda. Scheuer has put forth a few explanations for US conduct. One, he has stated that pre-9/11 capture/kill missions failed due to risk averse policy makers. Two, he stated that CIA withholding about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was due to concern about poor FBI computer systems. Three, as previously mentioned he suggested that al Qaeda was protected by the Saudi government.


The first two statements you cite are clear evidence of incompetence, nto active protection. You said it yourself: "risk averse policy makers". There's nothing conspiratorial about that.

And any suggestions that al Qaeda is protected by the Saudi government fail in the light of that government being a stated target of the group. Furthermore, the Saudis have demonstrated that they're willing to obstruct outside assistance in order to pursue their own justice, as demonstrated in the case of the culprits in the Khobar Towers bombings. They obstructed US investigations only to execute 4 culprits through their own system. You cannot confuse that with open protection.


I don't consider myself a "truther." I do consider myself a skeptic of official explanations. Where is the 9/11 transparency from the government? If skeptics are so full of it then why is there so much secrecy almost eight years after the attacks?


The real question is why, if all you are is a skeptic asking questions, are you merely reiterating standard conspiracy peddling claims? An also, why you fail to comprehend primary and secondary information, and instead trust the spinning of facts by conspiracy peddlers over truly independent analysis? The fact of the matter is that truly undecided researchers research the primary information and take pains to understand the depth of the story, instead of merely retailing conspiratorial myths. You have demonstrated a propensity to favor conspiracy myths. So you may believe that you're no truther, but your actions demonstrate otherwise.

[metamars]

From Bradblog.com (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7341), includes a nice review of the Edmonds story. FWIW, I expect another gag order. The Obama administration has proven to be mostly a continuation of the Bush administration, when it comes to torture and transparency. Holder recently showed some signs of independence, but I have trouble believing that he'll have the guts to let Sibel speak. (I welcome him to prove me wrong; as always, there's also the legitimate question of protecting sources and methods, so it's not like I'm fully aware of any legitimate constraints that should be on her.)

Quite frankly, I don't know who exactly had the authority to issue the subpoena. I'm guessing that Krikorian's defense requested it, and the judge agreed, and it is only the judge who can issue the subpoena. Can any lawyers spell this out for us?


Unless the Dept. of Justice re-invokes their twice-invoked "state secrets privilege" claim in order to once again gag former FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, her attorneys have notified the department by hand-delivered, sworn letter of declaration [PDF] this week, that she intends to give a public deposition, open to the media, in response to a subpoena this Saturday in Washington D.C..

[T.A.M.]

I hope they do remove the gag order. Then they will be able to hear all of her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:)

[defaultdotxbe]

I hope they do remove the gag order. Then they will be able to hear all of her lunacy in its entirety.

TAM:)
i hope they remove the gag order so we can find out she never had anything to talk about in the first place

[twinstead]

Bombshell: Bin Laden likes to wear women's underwear because it makes him feel "pretty". You hear it here first folks.

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait... guys, why are we just accepting that there's any gag order on Edmonds? Last time this claim came up, nobody provided any proof of one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3109815#post3109815). Did I miss something since then? Can someone provide some evidence that there is in fact a court ordered suppression on her?

[~enigma~]

Wait... guys, why are we just accepting that there's any gag order on Edmonds? Last time this claim came up, nobody provided any proof of one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3109815#post3109815). Did I miss something since then? Can someone provide some evidence that there is in fact a court ordered suppression on her?Well she certainly talks alot so I figured they meant gagged as in porn :)

[ElMondoHummus]

Wait... guys, why are we just accepting that there's any gag order on Edmonds? Last time this claim came up, nobody provided any proof of one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3109815#post3109815). Did I miss something since then? Can someone provide some evidence that there is in fact a court ordered suppression on her?

Ok, this is what that Brad Blog site said:

She notes that her agreement with her former employer, the FBI --- who fired her illegally after she filed whistleblower allegations about corruption and foreign infiltration in the linguistics department --- includes certain non-disclosure requirements. However, those requirements do not preclude her answering to a legally issued court subpoena


So what she's been operating under is an NDA, not a court suppression. All right. Now it's clear. We were presuming that this was a literal "gag order" in the past.

Ok. An NDA is a pretty serious thing in itself, and it's not something that should be violated lightly. Then again, given the gravity of the claims the truthers are spreading about what she knows, this is exactly the sort of whistleblower topic that she should violate the NDA over and claim whistleblower protection for. I need someone else to clarify this for me (Does Jhunter wanna invoke the Goddess of Legaltainment again? :D), but my understanding is that this is exactly what whistleblower protection exists for. Anyway, I do know that she's been prevented from giving court testimony due to the state secrets act, but I'd need someone like Lash to tell me if that prohibition applies outside of court testimony. Only references I see to state secrets has been in conjunction with either her lawsuit or her giving testimony in other lawsuits; I've seen no real "gag order" from a court (note I'm distinguishing that from the NDA) preventing her from speaking out in public. I only see the NDA.

Maybe this is one of those catch 22s. She's bound by the NDA except in court, but she's bound by the State Secrets act in a court. That's what this whole thing is looking like to me.

[twinstead]

Well she certainly talks alot so I figured they meant gagged as in porn :)


Ah, OH no he di'int!

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, and before anyone thinks I'm giving credence to the Kos site claim that "Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11.": No. I'm merely discussing the dynamics of the NDA and the court issue with the State Secrets act, not the veracity of the claims themselves. The fact remains that the truth about the relationship between Pakistan's ISI and the Talbian, and between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden is well known. Whatever she may say and truthers may claim, the fact is that Taliban=/= bin Laden, and that bin Laden's relationship with the Saudi government deteriorated to the point of being openly adversarial. He is indeed an enemy of the Saudi government. And has been one of the US for many years now as well. Even if the relationship was neutral or moderately friendly during the Afghan war - and available evidence says it was not (see prior posts of mine in this thread discussing Looming Tower. And read that book, as well as the others I've referenced) - it most certainly deteriorated when the US put forces in Saudi Arabia, and it hit rock bottom when the US forced the Sudan to kick him out and lose his fortune in the process. That is documented. Whatever Sibel Edmonds presents must account for all of that, or provide alternate explanations that do not contradict established fact. Whatever she provides must be able to explain what Lawrence Wright, Steven Coll, and Peter Bergen has published in order to be credible. And if she does, then I'm interested to see what impact that has on truther "theories". Because the obvious inference, contrary to all established data, is that the US was secretly in cahoots with bin Laden up till 9/11. So either the truthers have been overreaching and filling in blanks with fantasy rather than reasonable extrapolation (like that's never happened before :rolleyes:), or Sibel herself has been exaggerating such claims.

One way or another, I'd like to see what she has to say.

[Senenmut]

ive always wondered if the stealing of nuclear secrets edmonds speaks of is somehow related to 911. take for instance:
For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets

"The Turks and Israelis had planted “moles” in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” she said.

They were helped, she says, by the high-ranking State Department official who provided some of their moles – mainly PhD students – with security clearance to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities. These included the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent.
....

"The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official."

Edmonds said: “I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.”

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece?Submitted=true

[jhunter1163]

I can't speak to any of these claims, so there's only one thing to do...

*bows three times towards Toronto*

[ElMondoHummus]

I can't speak to any of these claims, so there's only one thing to do...

*bows three times towards Toronto*

We need to start a religion around this. She is a Goddess, after all. :)

You wanna be the Pope of it? Or the Grand Vizizer? Or whatever cool-sounding Poohbah name would be most appropriate. :D

[jhunter1163]

I'll lead the worshipers of the Goddess of Legaltainment. Perhaps she'll favor me with a Latin-sounding title, like "Legaltainus Rex."

(Note to lurkers who I happen to be married to: I'm kidding. Really I am).

[911kongen]

"Bombshell" apparently is Truth Movement for "unsubstantiated wild claim."

She provides no evidence, and there is no plausible way for her to have learned this information.

Good point! But they don care... :jaw-dropp

[BigAl]

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks."
[url]http://www.timesonline.co

Probably true, but so what as far as claims that the US and bin Laden were buddies as of 2001?

[ElMondoHummus]

(Note to lurkers who I happen to be married to: I'm kidding. Really I am).

Plural?? :jaw-dropp

[TruthersLie]

I'll lead the worshipers of the Goddess of Legaltainment. Perhaps she'll favor me with a Latin-sounding title, like "Legaltainus Rex."

(Note to lurkers who I happen to be married to: I'm kidding. Really I am).

I didn't know you were mormon or muslim. YOu are married to more than one lurker here? Wow...

you might want to put down the shovel.. you are almost in china.

[SteveAustin]

There is no evidence that Osama was ever an agent of the US.

There is lots of evidence that he wasn't.

And that evidence is what exactly?

Links please

[SteveAustin]

i hope they remove the gag order so we can find out she never had anything to talk about in the first place

Yes because gag orders are always placed on people who have nothing to say, nothing to reveal. Makes sense in a JREF kind of way doesn't it!!

[jhunter1163]

Something tells me I'm going to have one of THOSE nights tonight. :eek:

[ElMondoHummus]

Something tells me I'm going to have one of THOSE nights tonight. :eek:

Well, yeah, if your MULTIPLE WIVES find out about each other!!!

;):D

[Senenmut]

Probably true, but so what as far as claims that the US and bin Laden were buddies as of 2001?


how close was the relationship between the isi and cia?

[Senenmut]

FYI gunderson was interested in my case, a child abuse case, and he wormed his way into my life. It is a long story but he ended up working out of my house and because of illness, I quit my job and answered phone calls, sent out mail (whatever it was he was doing) and did research for him for a while.
Cheri Seymour aka Carole Marshall hung around my place along with a number of other characters, including Michael. She has a very fertile imagination. I still don't know what her reason was for writing what she did. Some is true some is not. I didn't know everything that was going on-thank God.
I threw gunderson out in 1993 and moved. He took us for almost every dime we (my 2 children and I) had, so I was unable to follow up on anything for years.
I had all of the files at my place-we were putting them together for Michael's defense.
I don't know why gunderson would have his webmaster (Chris Jones) now in prison for molesting little boys) would post that particular paper...but then you can never expect to figure out why a psycho does anything..


what a story! do you still have his documents?