Did Osama Bin Laden have anything to do with september 11, 2001?

[I and I]

I thought evidence from google and youtube was where conspiracy theories are born....

From what news agency and what year did you come to believe that Bin Laden was responsible?

Did you ever see any evidence at all?

You mean the evidence is so abundant you can't just post a link? Right

[Andrew_Njonjo]

(28-11-2012 01:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  I thought evidence from google and youtube was where conspiracy theories are born....

From what news agency and what year did you come to believe that Bin Laden was responsible?

Did you ever see any evidence at all?

You mean the evidence is so abundant you can't just post a link? Right

Is this credible? http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

Can I ask a separate question do you have an alternative hypothesis of who was behind the attacks? I know its not entirely relevant to this conversation but most of the evidence available to the general public points at Al Qaeda and through Al Qaeda to Bin Laden.

[I and I]

(28-11-2012 03:08 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote:  

(28-11-2012 01:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  I thought evidence from google and youtube was where conspiracy theories are born....

From what news agency and what year did you come to believe that Bin Laden was responsible?

Did you ever see any evidence at all?

You mean the evidence is so abundant you can't just post a link? Right

Is this credible? http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

Can I ask a separate question do you have an alternative hypothesis of who was behind the attacks? I know its not entirely relevant to this conversation but most of the evidence available to the general public points at Al Qaeda and through Al Qaeda to Bin Laden.

The day of 9-11 even before the towers fell the U.S. media was pointing the finger at Bin Laden. What evidence were they given to let them know that Bin Laden was responsible (if he was responsibile). If these news agencies never saw any evidence and just went ahead in blaming Bin Laden, why did they do this? and what gave them the idea that Bin Laden was responsible?

[earmuffs]

(28-11-2012 01:38 AM)I and I Wrote:  I thought evidence from google and youtube was where conspiracy theories are born....

From what news agency and what year did you come to believe that Bin Laden was responsible?

Did you ever see any evidence at all?

You mean the evidence is so abundant you can't just post a link? Right

Gov, the youtubes has more videos besides retards who don't know shit giving their white trash opinions.
ie: I've been watching History channel documentaries on the barbarians that destroyed Rome as well as various history channel documentaries on various gangs in America on the youtubes for the last two weeks.

you want a link?
www.google.com
and have another
www.youtube.com
There you go gov, go to town.

[I and I]

When a belief can't be backed by facts it generally pisses people off.




Now what about that evidence of Bin Laden being behind 9-11......

[Janus]

Quote:Can I ask a separate question do you have an alternative hypothesis of who was behind the attacks? I know its not entirely relevant to this conversation but most of the evidence available to the general public points at Al Qaeda and through Al Qaeda to Bin Laden.

How credible is it that a couple dozen bearded fundie goat fuckers in a cave in Afghanistan conceived, executed, and pulled off, with near perfect coordination, the worst terrorist attack in living memory against the best defended country/city on the planet?

It isn't.

If you want to know who did it you just have to look at who benefited. And then it becomes painfully clear:

9/11 Was conceived and organised by the neocons to have an excuse to go to war. Because war means absurdly gigantic (military) orders for the industry = insane profits, and it means godlike power to the military to decide about and execute/send to their deaths hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent, initially uninvolved civilians, and – to date – about 80,000 Americans (afaik). All of this materialized to a T after 9/11! So much so that the American taxpayer today faces a 15 TRILLION dollar deficit! That's the money that went into the pockets of the neocon puppet masters. And that's the debt that will burden the American population for the next 2 centuries, and destroy its future.
Bin Laden was a nasty character to be sure, and he could provide the canon fodder, the 'martyrs' for this operation. So for 9/11 Bin Laden/Al Qaeda was a convenient patsy.

That's the short version.

Unbelievable? Not at all in a country where the same neocons assassinated their own head of state – their puppet – when he became an undesirable 'liability' to them: JFK! 9/11 fits perfectly in that culture. It is not unique either. History is littered with faked reasons to go to war! (E.g. Hitler's 'Gleiwitz Incident ', or LBJ's – a Democrat president, mind you – 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident ', etc. etc.).

9/11 Bears all the hallmarks of a typical American operation: it was high-tech, it required perfect organisation and coordination, limitless support and resources, it required the convenient absence of all air defense, and it was incredibly spectacular on an epic scale for the audience – US! Straight out of a Die Hard V Hollywood-esque scenario!

There's only one country in the world that could pull that off.

[I and I]

(28-11-2012 06:24 AM)Janus Wrote:  

Quote:Can I ask a separate question do you have an alternative hypothesis of who was behind the attacks? I know its not entirely relevant to this conversation but most of the evidence available to the general public points at Al Qaeda and through Al Qaeda to Bin Laden.

How credible is it that a couple dozen bearded fundie goat fuckers in a cave in Afghanistan conceived, executed, and pulled off, with near perfect coordination, the worst terrorist attack in living memory against the best defended country/city on the planet?

It isn't.

If you want to know who did it you just have to look at who benefited. And then it becomes painfully clear:

9/11 Was conceived and organised by the neocons to have an excuse to go to war. Because war means absurdly gigantic (military) orders for the industry = insane profits, and it means godlike power to the military to decide about and execute/send to their deaths hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent, initially uninvolved civilians, and – to date – about 80,000 Americans (afaik). All of this materialized to a T after 9/11! So much so that the American taxpayer today faces a 15 TRILLION dollar deficit! That's the money that went into the pockets of the neocons. And that's the debt that will burden the American population for the next 2 centuries, and destroy its future.
Bin Laden was a nasty character to be sure, so for 9/11 he was a convenient patsy.

That's the short version.

Unbelievable? Not at all in a country where the same neocons assassinated their own head of state – their puppet – when he became an undesirable 'liability' to them: JFK! 9/11 fits perfectly in that culture. It is not unique either. History is littered with faked reasons to go to war! (E.g. Hitler's 'Gleiwitz Incident ', the USA's 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident ', etc. etc.).

9/11 Bears all the hallmarks of a typical American operation: it was high-tech, it required perfect coordination, limitless support and resources, it required the convenient absence of all air defense, and it was incredibly spectacular. Straight out of a Die Hard V Hollywood-esque scenario!
There's only one country in the world that can pull that off.

The folks on this board who wouldn't know history from the whole in their ass and who love pushing the government line will now ask you for evidence of the claims you made, and once you provide evidence they will claim the evidence is not valid due to origin of their source. Just like arguing with a creationist there is no amount of evidence that is enough to them.

Look at how their brain works, none of them can provide any evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9-11 yet they firmly believe he was behind 9-11. Yes, we are dealing with mouth breathers of that sort.

[Janus]

(28-11-2012 07:04 AM)I and I Wrote:  The folks on this board who wouldn't know history from the whole in their ass and who love pushing the government line will now ask you for evidence of the claims you made, and once you provide evidence they will claim the evidence is not valid due to origin of their source. Just like arguing with a creationist there is no amount of evidence that is enough to them.

Look at how their brain works, none of them can provide any evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9-11 yet they firmly believe he was behind 9-11. Yes, we are dealing with mouth breathers of that sort.

I haven't got time for assholes.

[I and I]

(28-11-2012 07:20 AM)Janus Wrote:  

(28-11-2012 07:04 AM)I and I Wrote:  The folks on this board who wouldn't know history from the whole in their ass and who love pushing the government line will now ask you for evidence of the claims you made, and once you provide evidence they will claim the evidence is not valid due to origin of their source. Just like arguing with a creationist there is no amount of evidence that is enough to them.

Look at how their brain works, none of them can provide any evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9-11 yet they firmly believe he was behind 9-11. Yes, we are dealing with mouth breathers of that sort.

I haven't got time for assholes.

I do...

[earmuffs]

Quote:The folks on this board who wouldn't know history from the whole in
their ass and who love pushing the government line will now ask you for
evidence of the claims you made, and once you provide evidence they will
claim the evidence is not valid due to origin of their source.

Hypocrite much?

If you are not willing to put in the effort yourself, there is only so many times people are going to repeat themselves.