Bin Laden Expert Says Confession Tape "Bogus"

[TruthSeeker1234]

Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”

by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

2/17/06

Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11?

The Bush Administration says yes, citing a grainy, badly-edited
videotape that surfaced in December, 2001. In that tape, a fat guy who
vaguely resembles Bin Laden chortles about the success of the 9/11
attacks. (In earlier interviews, Bin Laden had denied responsibility
for 9/11, once even deploring the loss of civilian life in the attacks
and calling them un-Islamic.)

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush’s insistence
that the tape is authentic, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert has
finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts. “It’s
bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s
Religious Studies program.

[Alareth]

Your obsession with prattling on about nonsense is fascinating.

[parky76]

Who is this expert? What is his name?

There are multiple videos and interviews where UBL alludes to his involvemant and foreknowdledge of 9-11.

[JAStewart]

Top leading scientist claims a surprising claim

by a supporter of the claim

Do things happen?

Leading humans would want us to believe so
but others state things do not happen. A
new scholarly group named Scholarse for
things that don't happen are using anomalies,
unsupported claims and false evidence to
support their things don't happen theory.

Expert curtain maker asks, "Do things happen?".
"In my best guess, things never really happen,
its all a big cover up", he mused. He joins
the growing list of experts claiming things don't
happen like Lies McNasty, Claims McFalsy
and Quote McMiney. A recent Zogby poll
showed that 101% icelanders thought that
things don't happen. Check out a new film that
is set to be released in March called Loose Things.




- prisonplanet.

[twinstead]

troothydude just STOP it, for God's sake. STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF!

[JimBenArm]

troothydude just STOP it, for God's sake. STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF!
But it's his only skill in life!

[Alareth]

Maybe it's a lonely cry for help and all he really needs is a great big hug.

[A W Smith]

another twoofer "expert" completely out of their element.

says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s
Religious Studies program

[TruthSeeker1234]

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin
Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an
interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007,
first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public
statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent
Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457

[A W Smith]

Thats all I had to see was amazon.com in the url to realize hes making income rather than coming forward to the authorities with his evidence.

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin
Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an
interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007,
first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public
statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent
Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457


Price:$12.03 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping

[Oliver]

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin
Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an
interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007,
first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public
statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent
Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457


The earth is flat.

[twinstead]

Thats all I had to see was amazon.com in the url to realize hes making income rather than coming forward to the authorities with his evidence.

Well, it IS eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

What more do you want?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Bruce Lawrence seems to be of the same "mind" as Kevin Barrett. He's seem quite pro-Muslim.

BRUCE B. LAWRENCE (at Duke since 1971) An Islamicist and a comparativist, Bruce B. Lawrence is the Nancy and Jeffrey Marcus Humanities Professor of Religion. He has been on the faculty at Duke University since 1971. A graduate of Princeton University , with a Master of Divinity from Episcopal Divinity School ( Cambridge ), he earned his doctorate at Yale University in History of Religions. There he was trained to engage West Asia (aka the Middle East ) and South Asia , with particular reference to the cultures and languages, the history and religious practices marked as Muslim. But he also concerns himself with the non-Muslim religious traditions of Asia , especially Hinduism and Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism, at the same time that he pursues the turbulent reconnections of Europe to Asia forged in colonial, then post-colonial encounters. His early books explored the intellectual and social history of Asian Muslims. Shahrastani on the Indian Religions (1976) was followed by Notes from a Distant Flute (1978), The Rose and the Rock (1979) and Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology (1984). Since the mid-80s, he has been concerned with the interplay between religion and ideology. The test case of fundamentalism became the topic of his award-winning monograph, Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt against the Modern Age (1989/1995). A parallel but more limited enquiry informed his latest monograph, Shattering the Myth: Islam beyond Violence (1998/2000). It is the thorny issue of religious pluralism and diasporic communities that guide his monograph on Asian religions in America (Columbia University Press, November 2002). New Faiths/Old Fears concerns Asian religions in America , especially since 1965; it examines the challenge of their spiritual practices to North American norms and values. He has also written three collaborative works with colleagues from the Triangle area. The first, Beyond Turk and Hindu: Contesting Islamicate India , was edited with Professor David Gilmartin of North Carolina State University , and published by University Press of Florida in December 2000 (with an Indian edition in September 2002). The other was co-written with Professor Carl Ernst of UNC-Chapel Hill. Sufi Martrys to Love: The Chishti Brotherhood in South Asia and Beyond, was published from Palgrave Press, also in November 2002. Most recently, with his Duke colleague and spouse, dr. miriam cooke of Asian and African Languages and Literatures, he has co-edited Muslim Networks from Hajj to Hip Hop, published in March 2005 from UNC-CH Press in a series that he also co-edits, with Professor Ernst, on Islamic Civilization and Muslim Networks.
http://www.duke.edu/religion/home/lawrence/lawrence.html (note: after 10 seconds, this page redirects to the next link)

http://www.duke.edu/web/muslimnets/mcw_bio/bruce/index.htm

Click on writings and note the rather odd question: "Are we all Muslims?"

I think the only thing that makes him an "expert" on bin Laden is that he wrote a book about him... once.

[Rob Lister]

Interesting. I went to Duke to check out his bio. It's very rude html. It redirects to his his personal page. I shall therefore read neither.

[boloboffin]

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3828678

The professor is skeptical about when the most recent tape was recorded. He is NOT skeptical about the confession tape. He is NOT skeptical about it being Osama on the tape.

This is no way to run a truth movement.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, it IS eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

What more do you want?
but thats only for orders over 25 dollars, even if you bought 2 copies of the book it still wouldnt ship for free

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Edit: Oops. boloboffin's got it.

[twinstead]

Perhaps we should feel honored that although as usual troothydude's OP was full of crap, he did indeed actually post TWICE in this thread.

I think that's a recent record, no?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is no way to run a truth movement.
I'm having trouble convincing myself that even TS1234 is this utterly retarded. I think he's just flinging crap and doesn't really care if it sticks. He just wants to make a "mess" around here.

[boloboffin]

http://www.versobooks.com/books/klm/l-titles/lawrence_ed_messages_osama.shtml

Here, Mr. Lawrence seems to think that the October 24, 2004 (the election eve message) is geniune.

[LashL]

Hmm, last I checked, LossLeader has not (a) been banned, nor has he (b) issued an "apology" to you, Troofy1+2=4, so why are you even posting after your :dqueen declaration that you would not do so until either (a) or (b) occurred?

Or does it not count as "posting" in Troofy World if what you post is complete, unadulterated, nonsensical pap? Is that how you get around the words you wrote in your :dqueen declaration?

Just asking questions.

[The Doc]

The funny thing is that there is more than one Bin Laden confession tape. Some even show Bin Laden and the hijackers together lol.

[beachnut]

Lawrence, author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin
Laden, offered his historic debunking of the administration’s lie in an
interview with Kevin Barrett (“Dynamic Duo,” gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007,
first hour). The interview marked Lawrence’s first major public
statement since he made headlines last year by suggesting that recent
Osama tapes are hoaxes and that the real Osama Bin Laden may be dead.

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457

When you say "Kevin Barrett", you say nut case to the nth power! You are self debunking just saying "Kevin Barrett".

Is this a humor thread?

[beachnut]

In 1997 he was out to make sure someone would show us.


Q) What are your future plans? BIN LADIN: You'll see them and hear about them in the media, God willing.

TS1234 you seem to be trying to protect the person who kills americans and others in the name of peace. It is ironic Bin Ladin says peace and you say truth movement. He means kill, you mean lie.


BIN LADIN: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling (Saudi) family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.
OBL decided to bring some terrorist stuff to us, as he was telling us in 1997. We never listened, we did not read between the lines.

TS while you waste your time posting lies, OBL is trying to get you again. Last time OBL's efforts made you an idiot; what will the next OBL surprise make you?

[Firestone]

TruthSeeker1234, have you read this article (http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html), where real specialists discuss (among other things), the video you claim is fake?

It is a dialogue between Al Jazeera London bureau chief Yosri Fouda and TBS Publisher and Senior Editor S. Abdallah Schleifer. Read what they, as experts, say about the video found in Afghanistan.

I have posted this a number of times, on this forum and on others.
Never has a truther dared commenting on it. Why?

An excerpt, but please read the whole article:

SAS: Your documentary is built around the actual voice of Ramzi telling you how Al-Qa'ida pulled it off. And there was the much earlier amateurishly filmed video tape that the American government says they found in Afghanistan, and which was not intended for public viewing, in which a militant Saudi sheikh, visiting with Bin Ladin leads Bin Ladin into an acknowledgement that it was Al-Qa'ida operatives known only to him and a few others, who staged the operation and Bin Ladin re-enacts his great joy when the operation succeeded well beyond his expectations. My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin but my intuition also told me that the Sheikh was an intelligence agent, probably for the Americans and the their taped conversation a sting operation. A few days later a respectable British newspaper confirmed it was a sting but they said it was set up by Saudi intelligence. And certainly the former head of Saudi intelligence has made it clear in no uncertain terms that 9/11 was an Al-Qa'ida operation. Now despite all of this and other documentation, so many Arabs were in a state of denial and many are still in a state of denial, insisting that Al-Qa'ida or any Arabs for that matter could not have had anything to do with this operation, that this was a Mossad or CIA operation.

YF: I'm very very sad, being an Egyptian and having graduated from Cairo University and then studying TV Journalism at the American University in Cairo to know that just about every newspaper and TV station in the world were dying to have a couple of words from me on this story except for the Egyptian press. You know, I'm told that some of the leading columnists in Egypt like Salah Montasser criticized my coverage and asked rhetorically "How come Yosri Fouda had access to American airports? There must be something between him and the CIA."

As for that tape you mentioned that we didn't screen, I have some news for you. Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa'ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh's video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.

[MikeW]

Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”
Why are the CTs still pretending that this is the only, or even the main evidence that al Qaeda have accepted responsibility for 9/11? Have they forgotten all the other statements starting from only weeks after the event? The video tapes? The explanation by KSM to al Jazeera of how he planned it? The final tapes of hijackers thanking bin Ladin? Does Prof Lawrence have an explanation for these, too?

[dan from PA]

...yeah, and he has got a very elaborate cave system over there, remember that pic in popular mechanics...bad dude fer sure...

[PerryLogan]

The underlying questions for me are:

1) why would the perps put out a clue that was clumsily made and obviously fake, and

2) how could such a poorly-made bit of false evidence fool everyone in the world except the conspiracy guys?

Again and again, the Truthers claim that the perps are leaving big, blatant, obvious clues--historical anomalies, violations of the laws of physics, poorly-faked videos, etc. Yet only the conspiracy guys can see these clues. It's really kind of funny.

[Gravy]

I look forward to the results being published here.

[geggy]

Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies' complicity.

It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has already been made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a surprise, which in turn, points to the President and others in his administration.

From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69 points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for involvement of September 11 th .

Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the media were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation. Why was it considered necessary to lie, in order to create a case against Bin Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush administration.

The first public response from Osama bin Laden was read on September 16, 2001. He stated, "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel. This denial was broadcast on U.S. news networks and worldwide. The second public response was read on September 28 by Daily Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper. In it, bin Laden stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

...

[The Doc]

...

Geggy,

1. Sources
2. Please give me your opinion on the several Bin Laden confession tapes, the Zawahiri confessions, The KSM confession, The Hijacker martydom videos, the videos of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden, Airport Surveillance featuring the hjiackers... I could go on.

What is really ammusing is how 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists can say that the US government had foreknowledge that Bin Laden wanted to fly planes into the WTC's, and then in the same breath say that the US government said Bin Laden was involved too soon after the event.

[Donal]

And please tell us why you insist on citing neonazi periodicals, deny the Holocaust, and yet accuse me of supporting Nazis.

And please tell me when you intend to appologize for such a statement.

[Larry Lovage]

Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies' complicity.This is quite funny, because you sound as if OBL was "convicted" in the court of public opinion and in statements by the government without any basis, and then you're claiming that there must have been a basis, therefore they already knew about it.

From another forum I was led to this video (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3074561005024763960&q=9%2F11+solution), which starts with one of those declarative statements much beloved by CT videos:If a crime were committed...and immediately afterwards "experts" appeared on the scene claiming knowledge that no one could possibly have about it...what would you think?To which my reply would be, "Well, I'd think it was situation normal, since that's the way the media operate all the time."

Whoever wrote what you quoted from, geggy, is trying to make it sound as if Osama Bin Laden came out of nowhere to be fingered immediately as the sponsor and organiser of 9/11. But of course he was well known, to the public at large, as the most prominent Islamist terrorist in the Middle East. That the media immediately fixated on him as the man behind the attacks is without any doubt a violation of any considerations of the normal workings of Justice, were he to be actually brought to trial, but that's never stopped the media doing that kind of thing at every possible opportunity.
It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US authorities, or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it.Unless this derives from the false logic of the previous paragraph ("we name Bin Laden now, therefore we knew it was going to happen"), it's not really a justifiable statement. There's an assumption here that 9/11 simply could not have happened without Government collusion, and that is plainly not the case. All it required was to be able to hijack planes, something that since it takes place in the air when the plane is at its most vulnerable, is something very difficult to prevent without imposing security precautions that, prior to 9/11, were considered too stringent and too inconvenient for normal passengers and for an efficient running of air transportation.

The point has already been made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a surprise, which in turn, points to the President and others in his administration.
There's nothing behind this statement at all. Since Bin Laden was a fugitive in a distant unfriendly country, he pretty much could do what he liked, unless for some reason you believe that "once helped by the CIA, always a paid agent who does everything he can for them", which would be annoyingly naïve of the CIA if they believed it of their operatives.

I for one went for five years without believing that Bin Laden was directly connected with the planning and execution of 9/11 or that he needed to be anything more than a mere figurehead for the terrorists who carried it out. Not until the testimony around the Moussaoui trial did I realise that he was either far more intimately involved than even the authorities had expected, or (equally likely) the guy's full of ****.

He definitely disclaimed knowledge or operative involvement with 9/11 in the immediate aftermath, I remember that myself. However, since he has jumped on the bandwaggon of claiming responsibility for it, one wonders why he initially made the denial. Could it be because of the unparallelled enormity of the attack and its aftermath, he wasn't certain that it would retain the support of the Arab world he was most inclined to try to influence? And that subsequent Arab revolt against the USA (not least Saddam and the Iraq war) strengthened his position, allowing him to take the credit again? It's certainly something to ponder.

However, the last thing to point out is that for actual Judicial purposes there probably is not sufficient evidence to convict him in a US court, leaving aside the likelihood of finding an impartial jury. And this is why he's not on the FBI most wanted list for 9/11, but for other attacks for which the evidence is stronger. (I brought that up since there's been a lot of talk about the Jersey Girls and their "unanswered questions".)

On the topic of Bruce Lawrence, it seems clear to me that his analysis of the most recent tape deserves some consideration. He may be jumping the gun in his belief that Bin Laden is actually dead. The tape may have been fabricated for other reasons. His notes that the message was one third shorter than Bin Laden's shortest previous tape, that there were no Koran quotations, etc, possibly point to a cut and paste job done by somebody (I'm still thinking Al Q'aeda) out of previous taped conversations rather than a whole coherent speech. Lawrence's position is strengthened by the consideration that the reason for this tape's release might well be simply to try to demonstrate that Bin Laden is alive... something you would only do if he was dead.

[TruthSeeker1234]

We can deconstruct some of the other evidence elsewhere. Here we deconstruct this evidence. Clearly these two are not the same person. The U.S. government lied. Surprise surprise.
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osamafake.jpghttp://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osama.jpg

[The Silver Shadow]

and that is only one shot taken from a grainy video. It is the worst possible shot and you use it.

[einsteen]

The earth is flat.

locally it is

[einsteen]

In 1999 the technique to create a 3d model of a face using a single 2d picture already existed, see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nice6NYb_WA

Amazing. If you look at the whole video it seems that there are other frames where he looks more like OBL although I couldn't find those frames. It is also not really interesting if the video is fake or not, if Osama wants to tell his message he could do it via a body double. I'm wondering if he is still alive.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We can deconstruct some of the other evidence elsewhere. Here we deconstruct this evidence. Clearly these are not the same two people. The U.S. government lied. Surprise surprise.
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osamafake.jpghttp://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osama.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_758345d883388c18a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4240)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_758345d88367339c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4241)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_758345d8839242625.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4242)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_758345d883b6d84e3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4243)
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

Go back to your Barbies Ace.

[einsteen]

If you do a correction for facial expressions and shadows you see it is the same Dylan. But again the only important question is whether it is Osama's message or not.

[Legalduck]

Quote:
Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. emphasis added

I would like to know the source for this.

Also, what does it mean to have been "unofficially convicted?" Convicted is a legal term of art. I looked in Black's Law Dictionary. I even cracked open my crim law book and crim pro book. None of them mention the term "unofficially convicted." Help me out here geggy:D

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/



The person in all of those pictures does not look like Osama bin Laden. In all of those pictures, and from any angle, his nose is much shorter than bin Laden's. This is a great example of the absurd depths to which one must stoop to believe the official myth.

[The Silver Shadow]

and let me guess, if the film was crystal clear on a tripod and the lighting was perfect, you would say that it was staged and part of a government conspiracy, right?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The person in all of those pictures does not look like Osama bin Laden. In all of those pictures, and from any angle, his nose is much shorter than bin Laden's. This is a great example of the absurd depths to which one must stoop to believe the official myth.
So, since you've been posting recently I guess they must have released you, eh?

[CptColumbo]

So where does one go to be certified a "Bin Laden Expert?" Is it a course offered at Princeton now that the ESP program is shut down. Also, what make one expert better than another?

[twinstead]

So where does one go to be certified a "Bin Laden Expert?" Is it a course offered at Princeton now that the ESP program is shut down. Also, what make one expert better than another?

As far as troothydude is concerned, the expert whom he agrees with is always the better expert. Our poor troothmeister seems to be MUCH less likely to question the motives and expertise of those he agrees with than all those government shills who support the official story.

[Peephole]

the videos of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden,
I don't think there is a video that shows Bin Laden meeting the hijackers. There's one which includes Bin Laden meeting one of the guys who was alledgedly involved in planning the attacks, but not the hijackers.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't think there is a video that shows Bin Laden meeting the hijackers. There's one which includes Bin Laden meeting one of the guys who was alledgedly involved in planning the attacks, but not the hijackers.
Al-Jazeera aired Thursday previously unshown footage of the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks in which al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the planners and hijackers in a mountain camp in Afghanistan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/terror/main1982773.shtml

[gumboot]

We can deconstruct some of the other evidence elsewhere. Here we deconstruct this evidence. Clearly these two are not the same person. The U.S. government lied. Surprise surprise.
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osamafake.jpghttp://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osama.jpg


Hello truthy. I work in the film industry. I can tell you without question that the same people can look totally different in various lighting environments, from various angles, on various cameras and lenses.

It is impossible to make an identity judgement based on two photographs.

-Gumboot

[Perforatu]

It is impossible to make an identity judgement based on two photographs.
They're not even photographs. They're blown-up, enhanced captures of grainy videos. When you view them in their entirety, they tell a different story.

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

[strathmeyer]

We can deconstruct some of the other evidence elsewhere. Here we deconstruct this evidence. Clearly these two are not the same person. The U.S. government lied. Surprise surprise.
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osamafake.jpghttp://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/osama.jpg

If you deconstruct the evidence one way and everyone else desconstructs it the opposite way, what's clear about that?

[Peephole]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/terror/main1982773.shtml
Read the article more closely.

"The video included the last will and testaments of two of the hijackers, Wail al-Shehri and Hamza al-Ghamdi."

"In the latest video, bin Laden is shown sitting outside in what appears to be a mountain camp with his former lieutenant Mohammed Atef and Ramzi Binalshibh, another suspected planner of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, was killed by a U.S. air strike in Afghanistan in 2001. Binalshibh was captured four years ago in Pakistan and is currently in U.S. custody, and this week President George W. Bush announced plans to put him on military trial."

It shows footage of Bin Laden meeting some of the planners and it shows footage of the hijackers reading their testaments. It doesn't show Bin Laden meeting some of the hijackers.

[T.A.M.]

See I told them, if you're gonna use a double, he must look exactly like OBL. I told them, these days all these kids they have the internet and they'll stop the video...they'll capture frames...they'll find out...but would they listen....no...well serves them right...damn the all powerful PNAC cabal....

TAM;)

[Loss Leader]

The person in all of those pictures does not look like Osama bin Laden. In all of those pictures, and from any angle, his nose is much shorter than bin Laden's. This is a great example of the absurd depths to which one must stoop to believe the official myth.

Just wanted to make two quick points:

1. TS1234 continues to believe that pictures and video give much more information than they actually do.

2. I still have not apologized and never will. Despite stating that he would not return to the forum, Tr00thseeker2+2=5 continues to open new threads, post and then abandon the threads. Not being a man of his word, one should suspect that everything he says is equally untrue.

[Alareth]

I've lost track, what exactly was it he wanted you banned/demanded an apology for?

[sleahead]

See I told them, if you're gonna use a double, he must look exactly like OBL. I told them, these days all these kids they have the internet and they'll stop the video...they'll capture frames...they'll find out...but would they listen....no...well serves them right...damn the all powerful PNAC cabal....

TAM

I told them this too, TAM. Furthermore, I told them to just have the Bin Laden double do a solo piece to camera confessing all. But oh no, they just had to go and get doubles for Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Khalid Al-Harbi and Suleiman Abu Gnaith and include them in the video as well.

Funny thing is, the CTs don't seem to challenge the other doubles. I think Einsteen sees the problem and in his post he alludes to digital manipulation as a means of producing a fake tape. But the same logic applies - why fake four images when you only need to fake one? Where is the CTs analysis of these images? Einsteen says it is not interesting whether the video is real or fake. I think Einsteen is close to conceding that the tape is genuine. How about you, TS1234?

[geggy]

oops

[MikeW]

Bin Laden confession tapes??? Bwahahaha. Explain to me why he denied involvement in the first place despite initially boasting about the uss cole bombing and the 1998 us embassy bombings.
Where did he "boast" about those?

[geggy]

Geggy,

1. Sources
2. Please give me your opinion on the several Bin Laden confession tapes, the Zawahiri confessions, The KSM confession, The Hijacker martydom videos, the videos of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden, Airport Surveillance featuring the hjiackers... I could go on.

What is really ammusing is how 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists can say that the US government had foreknowledge that Bin Laden wanted to fly planes into the WTC's, and then in the same breath say that the US government said Bin Laden was involved too soon after the event.

The fact bin laden was quickly named the sole suspect of 9/11 on the same day of the attack clearly indicated they had foreknowledge, how much they knew of the operation, what was coming and saw it as an opportunity if they had let it happen, if not providing assistance.

Bin Laden confession tapes??? Bwahahaha. Explain to me why he denied involvement in the first place despite initially boasting about the uss cole bombing and the 1998 us embassy bombings. And explain to me why these so called video/audio tapes usually come at the most convienent time for the bush administartion, ie. two days before the 2004 election. Also why hasnt the fbi use these tapes as "evidence" to indict bin laden? He was indicted within 3 months of the 1998 us embassy bombings despite little evidence.

KSM was fbi's wanted terrorist since the 1993 wtc bombing and remained scot free until he was magically captured right before the beginning of the 9/11 commission hearing in 2003 when they needed a cover story since they had absolutely none in between 2001 and 2003.

Which tapes are you speaking of that shows bin laden associating with the hijackers...is it the one with the masked men operating out of caves which is laughable and lack any conviction? And can you provide the link to the hijackers martydom video?

[Firestone]

The fact bin laden was quickly named the sole suspect of 9/11 on the same day of the attack clearly indicated they had foreknowledge, how much they knew of the operation, what was coming and saw it as an opportunity if they had let it happen, if not providing assistance.Bin Laden was quickly named the main (not sole) suspect in European media too, dear geggy. Actually with less restraint than on American media on the day of the attacks.
Had they also foreknolewdge?

Had I foreknolewdge? Because he also was my main suspect, even before WTC 1 collapsed.

You now, some people, and certainly journalist, follow the news, and knew about Bin Laden for years, certainly after the embassy bombings of 1998.

Bin Laden confession tapes??? Bwahahaha. Explain to me why he denied involvement in the first place despite initially boasting about the uss cole bombing and the 1998 us embassy bombings.Because he had to cover for his Taleban friends.
Once the Taleban were ousted, no need anymore to deny his involvement.

And explain to me why these so called video/audio tapes usually come at the most convienent time for the bush administartion, ie. two days before the 2004 election.I'm not sure reminding the public that Bin Laden hasn't yet been caught is very convenient for the Bush administration.

geggy, these points have been made a thousand times without you or another truther answering them in any rational way.

Can you explain why Arab journalists have no trouble recognizing the Bin Laden tapes for genuine? Are they in it too? Is Al Jazeera in it too?

ETA: I now see geggy removed his post after MikeW asked a question and while I was writing my post. The new post essentially repeats the points I address, so I will not change anything to my post.

[Loss Leader]

I've lost track, what exactly was it he wanted you banned/demanded an apology for?

Here's his whole moronic thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2113188#post2113188) about it. It was titled Loss Leader Advocates Murder. It was all great fun so long as you didn't have to think too hard about the fact that TS1234 is a real person who has to interact with the world.

[Loss Leader]

Is Al Jazeera in it too?

Al Jazeera probably has the most to gain. Just like Gulf War I turned CNN from a backwater station to a leading source for breaking news, Gulf War II turned Al Jazeera from a terrorist publicity arm to one of the most trusted sources for news in the Middle East.

As the US has bungled every step of its relations with Muslim nations over the last five years, Al Jazeera has been there to physically send reporters to areas where Western journalists would be quickly killed.

I, for one, suspect a vast anti-Zionist media conspiracy with extensive false-false-flag operations where the Israelis and US co-conspirators are made to look like they have launched a false-flag operation where Muslim extremists are made to look like they want to attack Western interests which they really do but haven't yet because of good manners and even tempers.

[stateofgrace]

The fact bin laden was quickly named the sole suspect of 9/11 on the same day of the attack clearly indicated they had foreknowledge, how much they knew of the operation, what was coming and saw it as an opportunity if they had let it happen, if not providing assistance.


Geggy for your viewing pleasure, please read , it as all been fully disclosed and is in the public domain. Once you have read what is in the link, maybe you can figure out how they knew so quickly it was OBL and Al Qaeda.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.htm


It would be nice if once in awhile you guys would actually read what is available to you, rather than simply jumping to conclusions.

[geggy]

Bin Laden was quickly named the main (not sole) suspect in European media too, dear geggy. Actually with less restraint than on American media on the day of the attacks.
Had they also foreknolewdge?

this makes no sense. the media wasn't the one that named bin laden the suspect, they had obtained information from the DOD of pentagon and assumed his guilt. Then the us media influenced the european media into assuming his guilt.

Had I foreknolewdge? Because he also was my main suspect, even before WTC 1 collapsed.

Being the main suspect doesnt neccessarily mean he is the definitive culprit unless it was proven, and where is your proof? As soon as the media point the blame on bin laden, I assumed his guilt as well, but later changed my mind because i've not seen one convincing evidence since.

You now, some people, and certainly journalist, follow the news, and knew about Bin Laden for years, certainly after the embassy bombings of 1998.

again how exactly does that prove bin laden's guilt on 9/11?

Because he had to cover for his Taleban friends.
Once the Taleban were ousted, no need anymore to deny his involvement.

he initially confessed after he was captured, it's not like he came forward.

I'm not sure reminding the public that Bin Laden hasn't yet been caught is very convenient for the Bush administration.

To keep the war on terror theater running as the opposition of the wars in the middle east grows. the release of these tapes also have distracted the public away everytime the bush administration is in the hot soup for wrong doings and to prevent from the support and public opinion of the bush administration to wane. Immediately after 9/11 bush approval rating shot up to 90 percent.

Can you explain why Arab journalists have no trouble recognizing the Bin Laden tapes for genuine? Are they in it too? Is Al Jazeera in it too?

They were probably fooled as well.

[Firestone]

Bin Laden was quickly named the main (not sole) suspect in European media too, dear geggy. Actually with less restraint than on American media on the day of the attacks.
Had they also foreknolewdge?

this makes no sense. the media wasn't the one that named bin laden the suspect, they had obtained information from the DOD of pentagon and assumed his guilt. Then the us media influenced the european media into assuming his guilt.Whether it makes sense to you or not doesn't really matter, geggy. That's what happened.
Almost all analysts in Europe almost immediately (meaning on the day itself) named OBL as the main suspect. The DOD or the Pentagon had nothing to do with this. The European media and analysts are independent from the DOD. They didn't in general follow the DOD on WMD in Iraq, for example.

Had I foreknolewdge? Because he also was my main suspect, even before WTC 1 collapsed.

Being the main suspect doesnt neccessarily mean he is the definitive culprit unless it was proven, and where is your proof? As soon as the media point the blame on bin laden, I assumed his guilt as well, but later changed my mind because i've not seen one convincing evidence since.You are changing the subject here. I answered your following claim:

The fact bin laden was quickly named the sole suspect of 9/11 on the same day of the attack clearly indicated they had foreknowledge, how much they knew of the operation, what was coming and saw it as an opportunity if they had let it happen, if not providing assistance.You see, geggy, suspect, not guilty.
That Al Qaeda was indeed guilty was confirmed later with overwhelming evidence and Bin Laden's confessions. That you ignore evidence doesn't make it disappear.

You now, some people, and certainly journalist, follow the news, and knew about Bin Laden for years, certainly after the embassy bombings of 1998.

again how exactly does that prove bin laden's guilt on 9/11?Once more, we were talking about why Bin Laden was the initial suspect.

Because he had to cover for his Taleban friends.
Once the Taleban were ousted, no need anymore to deny his involvement.

he initially confessed after he was captured, it's not like he came forward.No idea what you are talking about. Bin Laden has yet to be captured.

I'm not sure reminding the public that Bin Laden hasn't yet been caught is very convenient for the Bush administration.

To keep the war on terror theater running as the opposition of the wars in the middle east grows. the release of these tapes also have distracted the public away everytime the bush administration is in the hot soup for wrong doings and to prevent from the support and public opinion of the bush administration to wane. Immediately after 9/11 bush approval rating shot up to 90 percent.Or, Bin Laden tries to remind the American voters that the president is not able to catch him ...

Can you explain why Arab journalists have no trouble recognizing the Bin Laden tapes for genuine? Are they in it too? Is Al Jazeera in it too?

They were probably fooled as well.Of course. The whole world is stupid, except you and your fellow truthers.

You know what, geggy?
You have been provided with evidence, and in your reply you just tried to change the subject. You haven't addressed anything in substance.

I'll summarize.
That Bin Laden was quicly named suspect doesn't show foreknowledge by the USG. Everyone following the news knew about Bin Laden, and he was the logical main suspect.
That Al Qaeda is guilty follows (among many other evidence) from the confessions by Bin Laden himself, which are considered genuine by all experts, including Arab ones.

[JamesB]

What Barrett omits, is in this guy's book, there are at least 4 other speeches that bin Laden made where he admits Arabs did it.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/messages-from-osama-bin-laden.html

It was not nineteen Arab states that did this deed [9/11]. It was not Arab armies or ministries who humbled the oppressor who harms us in Palestine and elsewhere. It was nineteen post-secondary students - I beg God Almighty to accept them - who shook America's throne, struck its economy right in the heart, and dealt the biggest military power a mighty blow, by the grace of God Almighty.

[negativ]

And can you provide the link to the hijackers martydom video?

Work blocks Youtube, but go there and search for a video called "The Usual Suspects."

Make sure you have a tissue handy so you don't ruin another keyboard.

I'm sure you'll claim the Arabic translations are wrong, and that they're really just reciting recipes for yummy pastry snacks.

[pomeroo]

=TruthSeeker1234;2354178]The person in all of those pictures does not look like Osama bin Laden. In all of those pictures, and from any angle, his nose is much shorter than bin Laden's. This is a great example of the absurd depths to which one must stoop to believe the official myth.


You are Ace Baker, are you not?

Dr. Frank Greening stated in an e-mail that you had challenged him to a video debate and asked if I would agree to host it. As I recall, you did not cut a terribly impressive figure in your exchanges with Dr. Greening, posted in this forum and on Smasher's blog, but if I'm acceptable to you, I'll be happy to moderate.

First, however, I'd like you, or any fantasist with the requisite intellectual integrity (OTFLMAO), to respond to what I call the Osama Conundrum. It's really quite simple:

The "confession" video has been authenticated by people working for the virulently anti-American al Jazeera. But we will pretend that it is a fake--indeed, we'll pretend that ALL recent bin Laden videos are fakes. That guy who could be the terror chief's identical twin is an actor paid by the CIA to inflame the Arab Street and win support for al Qaeda (of course it makes absolutely no sense--we're pretending, dammit!).

Last fall, the heads of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy were faced with a looming disaster at the polls. They had the opportunity to produce a miracle, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, by the simple expedient of announcing that bin Laden had been killed: Hallelujah, we nailed the bastard! As you may have noticed, they chose not to avail themselves of this last remaining item in their bag of tricks and suffered a humiliation that stripped them of much power. Now, I ask you, is that any way to run a fascist dictatorship?

The 9/11 Fantasy movement has a disturbing tendency to gloss over this phenomenon--indeed, it has a tendency to gloss over everything that is inconvenient to its politics--but bear with me: this is crucial. A massive cabal, disposing of the coercive muscle to knock into line thousands of people--structural engineers, physicists, metallurgists, avionics techs, military personnel, air traffic controllers, the Boeing Corporation, forensic examiners, police and fire departments of New York City and Washington, D.C., publishers, editors, and reporters of major newspapers, owners of major media outlets, producers of cable shows, and on and on-- COULD NOT FAKE THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO DOESN'T EXIST !?!?

Really, now, shouldn't the tinfoil-hat brigade offer a few thoughts on the matter? Neither Bush nor Cheney will ever again run for public office. This was the very last chance to play the Osama card. Tell us what the hell they were waiting for.

Here on Earth, it is clear enough that the Bushies couldn't risk announcing that they had killed Osama because, for all anyone knows, he might surface on a video thumbing his nose, as usual, at America. But what about the Bizarro World--your world? Osama and al Qaeda don't exist. How hard can it be to take credit for assassinating a bogeyman who, by definition, isn't real and can't possibly complain?

As we can all agree that proclaiming that they got the bad guy would have been kinderspiel for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy, we are left with the observable fact that they didn't do it.

Please explain.

[Belz...]

The person in all of those pictures does not look like Osama bin Laden. In all of those pictures, and from any angle, his nose is much shorter than bin Laden's.

"much shorter" ? Just like Paul McCartney's double doesn't really look like him1 ?

This is a great example of the absurd depths to which one must stoop to believe the official myth.

That's a double-bladed argument.

1: Yes, there actually is a conspiracy theory that says Paul was killed in 1967 and replaced by a look-alike.

[Belz...]

The fact bin laden was quickly named the sole suspect of 9/11 on the same day of the attack clearly indicated they had foreknowledge,

Non sequitur.

how much they knew of the operation, what was coming and saw it as an opportunity if they had let it happen, if not providing assistance.

Speculation.

Bin Laden confession tapes??? Bwahahaha.

Argument from incredulity.

Explain to me why he denied involvement in the first place despite initially boasting about the uss cole bombing and the 1998 us embassy bombings.

That wouldn't be evidence, either way.

is it the one with the masked men operating out of caves which is laughable and lack any conviction?

I wonder what kind of fallacy that is.

[Belz...]

As we can all agree that proclaiming that they got the bad guy would have been kinderspiel for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy, we are left with the observable fact that they didn't do it.

Please explain.

Great post, Pom. Nominated.

[Undesired Walrus]

Any new updates on this rather vague story?

As a general question, and one I get a lot from CTers, is "Why would Bin Laden film this and then US troops randomly find it?" which, I must saw, while rejecting CT theories, rather perplexing. I'm ignorant on that issue though, so maybe someone can fill me in?

[gumboot]

Any new updates on this rather vague story?

As a general question, and one I get a lot from CTers, is "Why would Bin Laden film this and then US troops randomly find it?" which, I must saw, while rejecting CT theories, rather perplexing. I'm ignorant on that issue though, so maybe someone can fill me in?



Unless I'm very much mistaken, said tapes were sent to Al Jazeera. However, given the tenacity of Al Qaeda and their friends in Iraq, it would be right up their alley to post a video in which they thumb their noses as the imperialist west to

The President,
White House
Washington DC,
United States of America

Courtesy of FedEx, nonetheless.

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

The BBC interviewed several terrorism experts from both Britain and the United States before WTC2 had even collapsed. They all said that they thought Bin Laden was likely responsible. The US government didn't lay specific blame on al Qaeda until a much later stage.

Unless you are saying that these terrorism analysts are in on it, your point is moot.

Firestone has responded to your posts adequately geggy, so I feel there is no need for me to get more in depth.

And what is it with you truthers and having avatars that depict horrible events in which people were brutally murdered? You have the image of Flight 11 hitting WTC1, Lyte Trip has an image of the Pentagon being hit (CGI), and I have seen many others on other boards. Quite frankly I think it's not cool.

[Mobyseven]

The BBC interviewed several terrorism experts from both Britain and the United States before WTC2 had even collapsed. They all said that they thought Bin Laden was likely responsible. The US government didn't lay specific blame on al Qaeda until a much later stage.

Unless you are saying that these terrorism analysts are in on it, your point is moot.

Firestone has responded to your posts adequately geggy, so I feel there is no need for me to get more in depth.

And what is it with you truthers and having avatars that depict horrible events in which people were brutally murdered? You have the image of Flight 11 hitting WTC1, Lyte Trip has an image of the Pentagon being hit (CGI), and I have seen many others on other boards. Quite frankly I think it's not cool.

Is Geggy still around? I thought he'd been MIA for some time now...?

[Dog Town]

Your obsession with prattling on about nonsense is fascinating.

Ditto! It's like a car wreck though, hard to look away! Twoofer's are an amazing social study! Only of the insane, of course. Dalmer was a nice case study. Wait till they go postal! A few will...


DT

[3bodyproblem]

See I told them, if you're gonna use a double, he must look exactly like OBL. I told them, these days all these kids they have the internet and they'll stop the video...they'll capture frames...they'll find out...but would they listen....no...well serves them right...damn the all powerful PNAC cabal....

TAM;)
hehe

[Unity]

Maybe it's a lonely cry for help and all he really needs is a great big hug.

LOL!

Geez...I don't get it either.

[Unity]

We can deconstruct some of the other evidence elsewhere. Here we deconstruct this evidence. Clearly these two are not the same person. The U.S. government lied. Surprise surprise.

Sorry about the old thread, but I still see this thing being thrown around. Can someone explain to my why the original photo is grainy and the fat nosed photo smoothed over? Even the other shot from the same video is grainy...how can anyone even call this a comparison?

[T.A.M.]

Funniest thing is one of their own, a fellow truther, broke the story that the reason the tape shows Bin Laden to look a little pudgy...due to the PAL conversion apparently.

Welcome to the forum Unity.

TAM:)

[Jonnyclueless]

Sorry about the old thread, but I still see this thing being thrown around. Can someone explain to my why the original photo is grainy and the fat nosed photo smoothed over? Even the other shot from the same video is grainy...how can anyone even call this a comparison?

It proves that distorting the aspect ratio of video can fool many people who don't think very hard.

And has anyone here shown us what expertise that Islamic professor has in video editing and manipulation? How does being a fn of Osama make him an expert on video doctoring? He claims because of the fat nose like all the other mis-informed people who don't know anything about video. So what is his expertise in these fields he is discussing?

[MikeW]

So what is his expertise in these fields he is discussing?
I don't think he's "America’s top academic Bin Laden expert", either. But I don't suppose Barrett will let that worry him.

[T.A.M.]

Didn't know where else to post this. Looks like the Pakistan OBl connection is a little more evident...

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

TAM:)

[parky76]

The 9-11 Deniers have taken specific frames from the video that make Bin Laden look heavier. They purposefully ignore the many other frames..from the EXACT same video..that show Bin Laden as the slimer...sexier self.

Truthseeker- why do you guys do this? What kind of "search for the Truth" ignores the many frames from a video that debunk your accusation...while holding on a pedistal those few frame that support it?

Do you really consider this honesty?

[T.A.M.]

Truthseeker has been banned parky...this is an old thread, recently rehashed.

TAM:)

[deep]

The 9-11 Deniers have taken specific frames from the video that make Bin Laden look heavier. They purposefully ignore the many other frames..from the EXACT same video..that show Bin Laden as the slimer...sexier self.

Truthseeker- why do you guys do this? What kind of "search for the Truth" ignores the many frames from a video that debunk your accusation...while holding on a pedistal those few frame that support it?

Do you really consider this honesty?


I don't know, what do you call it when you do it? The debunkers have done precisely the same thing that you're complaining about truthers doing: taking frames from the video selected entirely based on how well they support your claim, and using them as evidence to show that it really is Bin Laden in the video.

http://911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

We looked a little further, and found higher resolution shots that appear to be from the same tape. (followed by select frames from the video)


Another double standard. (I won't even dig too deeply into the use of the word "appear", but it sure sounds like the author isn't even 100% certain that those frames are from the same video!)

[MikeW]

I don't know, what do you call it when you do it? The debunkers have done precisely the same thing that you're complaining about truthers doing: taking frames from the video selected entirely based on how well they support your claim, and using them as evidence to show that it really is Bin Laden in the video.

http://911myths.com/html/fake_video.html
Nonsense.

The inside job movement largely hides information about this tape. Most won't show you the better resolution photos. They won't point out how tall this Bin Ladin is. They won't mention that it seems other al Qaeda figures like al-Zawahiri are with him. They won't tell their readers that the US was accused of mistranslating the video for their own benefit (odd, if they staged it). They won't point out that there are plenty of other times where bin Ladin and al Qaeda implicitly or explicitly accept responsibility for the attacks, preferring instead to pretend this is the only evidence. They are deceptive.

What I'm trying to do on the page you mention is reveal the information they leave out. That there are better shots that the inside job movement won't show, that Suleiman Galbraith etc are present in the video, that actually he does wear a ring in other videos, write right-handed etc. I am not being deceptive.

These approaches seem quite different to me, deep44. Perhaps you could explain in more detail how they're "precisely the same"?

[peteweaver]

Ace, most of us believe terrorist denial theories to be bogus.

Consider the implications of you being mistaken:
The 'truthers' you support, are for whatever reason, making excuses for a terrorist organisation, and have delved into the realms of science fiction, to promote such a view.

Most people around the world have no love for the US Government, but its obvious to all except the most seriously brainwashed, that the collapses of the twin towers occured because of structural damage and fire caused by the collision of aeroplanes.

[deep]

Nonsense.

(snip)

These approaches seem quite different to me, deep44. Perhaps you could explain in more detail how they're "precisely the same"?


Well, the post I was replying to chastised the truthers for showcasing certain frames in the Bin Laden video that do the best job of supporting their argument. I said that what you're doing on the page I linked was precisely the same thing (i.e., displaying specific frames from the video to support your argument).

Are you trying to tell me that you're not doing that? Because it sure looks like you are.

It's called a double standard; however, my criticism wasn't targeted at you, it was targeted at the person complaining about the truthers. Don't worry, though, there's another thread with criticism targeted specifically at you.

[MikeW]

Well, the post I was replying to chastised the truthers for showcasing certain frames in the Bin Laden video that do the best job of supporting their argument. I said that what you're doing on the page I linked was precisely the same thing (i.e., displaying specific frames from the video to support your argument).

Are you trying to tell me that you're not doing that? Because it sure looks like you are.

The point you were responding to said this:

The 9-11 Deniers have taken specific frames from the video that make Bin Laden look heavier. They purposefully ignore the many other frames..from the EXACT same video..that show Bin Laden as the slimer...sexier self.
It didn't just say they were being "selective", it said they were ignoring anything that was inconvenient in the video.

Am I being "selective"? Not in any way that can be avoided, as far as I can see - obviously I must "select" frames that demonstrate the point, but I do also show the more common frame at the top of the page. In terms of the point you were responding to, then, I'd say I'm not doing the same thing at all - I'm not concealing information, rather providing readers with extra details to help them come to a conclusion.

[cloudshipsrule]

Don't worry, though, there's another thread with criticism targeted specifically at you.

That's a relief. I was worried, for a second, that there wasn't going to be criticism directed towards MikeW.

[beachnut]

Well, the post I was replying to chastised the truthers for showcasing certain frames in the Bin Laden video that do the best job of supporting their argument. I said that what you're doing on the page I linked was precisely the same thing (i.e., displaying specific frames from the video to support your argument).

Are you trying to tell me that you're not doing that? Because it sure looks like you are.

It's called a double standard; however, my criticism wasn't targeted at you, it was targeted at the person complaining about the truthers. Don't worry, though, there's another thread with criticism targeted specifically at you.
The only double standard here is you trying to say the truth movement is like the people who use the whole story and facts to debunk them. You have failed to show that. You are trying to make excuses for liars but you failed.

[dudalb]

Any bets as to how long until deep44 outs himself as a twoofer?

[PhantomWolf]

Any bets as to how long until deep44 outs himself as a twoofer?

I thought he already had.....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are y'all still waiting for William Rea to come out too?

If ya are, I got news for y'all... ;)

[JimBenArm]

Are y'all still waiting for William Rea to come out too?

If ya are, I got news for y'all... ;)
Oh, please, don't make me wait. This is like those stupid TV shows, that cut to commercial right at the good part.
Do I have to watch 5 minutes of ads now, before you reveal your secret?

[Darkhole]

emphasis added

I would like to know the source for this.

Also, what does it mean to have been "unofficially convicted?" Convicted is a legal term of art. I looked in Black's Law Dictionary. I even cracked open my crim law book and crim pro book. None of them mention the term "unofficially convicted." Help me out here geggy:D
Done a Google search (advanced) for the 'exact frase' and that lead me to this page.


http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/

[Darkhole]

Work blocks Youtube, but go there and search for a video called "The Usual Suspects."

Make sure you have a tissue handy so you don't ruin another keyboard.

I'm sure you'll claim the Arabic translations are wrong, and that they're really just reciting recipes for yummy pastry snacks.

You have to be more precise, there 24 pages with 'The Usual Suspects'. :confused:

[MetalliSociety]

Top U.S. Bin Laden Expert: Confession Video “Bogus”

by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

2/17/06

lol...well this thread is completely worthless of all information by default of that man.

[twinstead]

Since this thread has been resurrected, I have decided to declare myself the top U.S. Bin Laden Expert.

Anybody have a problem with that?

[T.A.M.]

I will put your nomination for the position before the board at the next sekrit NWO meeting at the grove.

TAM:)

[Texas]

Hello truthy. I work in the film industry. I can tell you without question that the same people can look totally different in various lighting environments, from various angles, on various cameras and lenses.

It is impossible to make an identity judgement based on two photographs.

-Gumboot This link explains the "Fat Osama" issue;
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

The original video was made using the European PAL standard and when shown on US equipment the screen resolution is "squashed".

[CptColumbo]

Since this thread has been resurrected, I have decided to declare myself the top U.S. Bin Laden Expert.

Anybody have a problem with that?As long as I can be the US's top expert on President John Tyler.

I actually wrote a screenplay for a movie about him, but no one was interested. It was called His Accidency.

"Vader doesn't care."

[gumboot]

This link explains the "Fat Osama" issue;
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

The original video was made using the European PAL standard and when shown on US equipment the screen resolution is "squashed".


Personally I'm not convinced by the PAL/NTSC explanation for the "fatness". As we see in many other frames of the video, Bin Laden is not "fat" at all, but has the tall angular features we recognise.

Were the PAL/NTSC conversion the reason behind the "fatness", Bin Laden would appear unusually stocky in every frame. He doesn't.

[uk_dave]

He's obviously a shapeshifting fatty.

Call David Ike!

ETA: Wasn't there a character in 'Heroes' who could appear as any person to the viewer? Hmmmmm, we need an expert...........

[T.A.M.]

I agree, that in other frames he is more recognizable. However, you are talking a significant difference in vertical resolution (568 versus 480 I believe), and compressing that down, would account for why in CERTAIN FRAMES he is pudgy.

TAM:)