Lloyd England exposed was involved in 9/11 false flag event

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

pot...kettle

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

:pac: Does he have to have an opinion about 9/11? He just highlighting you're are broken record also. Accept who you are;)

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe cheerful's theory that the plane or "something else" was crashed into the Pentagon for the purposes of destroying paperwork since shredding said paperwork would attract too much attention?

Do you have any opinion on the conspiracy theory presented on the thread at all or just here for a drive by comment?

I find it possible and think that it is more plausible than there being no clear and definite footage of the plane crashing into one of the most secure buildings that exists.

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it possible and think that it is more plausible than there being no clear and definite footage of the plane crashing into one of the most secure buildings that exists.

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

No, but I think that it is could have been a happy consequence of a false flag for other reasons.

Not saying that it was, but also would not absolutely rule it out.

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

No,

So then you disagree with Cheerful Spring's conspiracy theory.

Do you believe that the conspirators paid off some random taxi driver to lie about what he saw on the day?
Do you believe that is a reasonable theory?

Deleted User wrote: »

but I think that it is could have been a happy consequence of a false flag for other reasons.

Not saying that it was, but also would not absolutely rule it out.

So then, why exactly did they not release the video of the plane hitting the video?
If it's not possible for the real explanation to be true, what's the alternative?

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

So you think it's possible that to destroy paper work, in the Pentagon, the only possible way to do it was to have a secret explosion followed by a plane crash?

That is a reasonable explanation to you?

It's possible because the plane is made of aluminium. Have you ever seen a bird strike against a plane? The aluminium deforms and bends. By the way its the kinetic energy that does the damage, not the plane itself. We know the west wall of the Pentagon had been upgraded with reinforced concrete to resist a terrorist attack (car bombs and truck bombs and plane strikes)

The blast penetrated three different wedges in the Pentagon wall and took out multiple floors. Plus the conspirators needed a military target to convince the world they are under attack and prepare their people for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

So then you disagree with Cheerful Spring's conspiracy theory.

No. The way you phrased the question was asking if I thought that an explosion followed by a plane crash was the only way to destroy paperwork. I don't think that was the only way.

I neither agree or disagree with Cheerful's theory. But I do like hearing them. That's why I come to conspiracy theory forums.

I don't believe in the teachings of the catholic church but I wouldn't go on the Christianity forum to berate people for having opinions that they can't back up conclusively.

I just think you are being unnecessarily confrontational. I would hate an echo chamber and absolutely encourage debate from both sides but there is a way of disagreeing without coming across as a pedant or looking to insult someone.

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

No. The way you phrased the question was asking if I thought that an explosion followed by a plane crash was the only way to destroy paperwork. I don't think that was the only way.

Ok then.
In that cause you are saying that the idea of people opting to use secret explosives followed by a fake plane crash instead of say a paper shredder is a reasonable explanation for events.
Because that is Cheerful's theory.

If you think it's not reasonable, then you don't believe cheerful's theory.
If you think it is reasonable, then you should at least try to understand why no one takes conspiracy theories and theorists seriously.

Deleted User wrote: »

I neither agree or disagree with Cheerful's theory. But I do like hearing them. That's why I come to conspiracy theory forums.

That's a cop out answer tbh.

Deleted User wrote: »

I just think you are being unnecessarily confrontational. I would hate an echo chamber and absolutely encourage debate from both sides but there is a way of disagreeing without coming across as a pedant or looking to insult someone.

Sure. But you are butting into a debate that has been going on for dozens of pages. And I use "debate" loosely. Had you been reading any thread in which cheerful posts, you would see that word doesn't really apply.

Was there anything confrontational about the very simple and direct questions I asked you?
If you would like, then maybe we can have a discussion about the topic at hand.
It can begin by going back and answering those questions in a direct and honest way.

If not, maybe heed your own posts and not post something like:
"Pot, kettle"

mikekerry

He is not "butting into a debate " , he is allowed put up posts in the forum.
that's what a forum is for.
you are always on the attack!

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it possible and think that it is more plausible than there being no clear and definite footage of the plane crashing into one of the most secure buildings that exists.

You find it plausible that the whole of 911 was an inside job because there isn't clear footage of the Pentagon attack?

Apart from some grainy clips there isn't much CCTV footage of the strikes on the Twin Towers despite that being a packed city

Likewise there is some grainy footage of the Pentagon strikes (most CCTV cameras point down at lobbys, parking and foyers)

For that to be the sole issue to cause you to suddenly start entertaining the notion of a gigantic secret inside job is a bit bizarre

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

He is not "butting into a debate " , he is allowed put up posts in the forum.
that's what a forum is for.
you are always on the attack!

I think people show quite a bit of restraint and patience considering the sheer volume of bull**** posted in this forum

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You find it more plausible that the whole of 911 was an inside job than there isn't clear footage of the Pentagon strike??

Apart from some grainy clips there isn't much CCTV footage of the strikes on the Twin Tower despite that being a packed city

Likewise there is some grainy footage of the Pentagon strikes (most CCTV cameras point down at lobbys, parking and foyers)

For that to be the sole issue to cause you to suddenly start entertaining the notion of a gigantic secret inside job is a bit bizarre

It obvious why that is The planes hit the towers high up.

There plenty of camera and photo footage though of the second plane hitting the tower.

Yes and Pentagon Cameras are located on the top of the roof and they recording a 360-degree view of the grass and parking lot. I posted a picture of the cameras on the roof where the plane crashed. There even a camera on the fire station. Most people don't know there was a Pentagon firehouse just about 20 feet away from the impact site with a camera on the wall.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe 9/11 was inside job and happened when crazies took over the White House. It no coincidence 9/11 just happened. Cheney and Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and other neocon nuts took office and got the ball rolling to change the middle east.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yes and Pentagon Cameras are located on the top of the roof and they recording a 360-degree view of the grass and parking lot. I posted a picture of the cameras on the roof where the plane crashed. There even a camera on the fire station. Most people don't know there was a Pentagon firehouse just about 20 feet away from the impact site with a camera on the wall.

Maybe they weren't working. Maybe the camera footage from the fire station was as "grainy' as the other footage. I work in a high security building that is surrounded by cameras - none of them at point at the sky or the horizon, they all point down

"Sir we need to have CCTV cameras that film in good quality and point in every direction"

"Why?"

"Because if a plane did hit us, there might be people who wouldn't believe it unless they had clear footage of it"

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe 9/11 was inside job and happened when crazies took over the White House. It no coincidence 9/11 just happened. Cheney and Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and other neocon nuts took office and got the ball rolling to change the middle east.

I thought the buildings were secretly blown up for insurance purposes by a Jew? I mean that's your claim

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Dohnjoe 9/11 was inside job and happened when crazies took over the White House. It no coincidence 9/11 just happened. Cheney and Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and other neocon nuts took office and got the ball rolling to change the middle east.

They absolutely got the ball rolling but there was no need to go to such lengths to justify war in the middle east. The justification for Iraq was WMDs remember.

Leveling a large part of lower Manhattan just simply wasn't needed. A small bomb would've done it. Similar to 93.

And leveling buildings to destroy paper evidence is complete nonsense.

mikekerry

but this is a forum and whether you agree with posters comments or not they are allowed post them.
It's obvious you don't think there is a conspiracy but I don't think it's healthy constantly cutting people down that you don't agree with.
My own view is that there are so many unanswered questions about 911 and the truth will never come out but a lot of things don't add up
e.g.
1) phone calls made at 30,000 feet - how was this possible?
2) why was there a power down in the twin towers for 30 hours on the weekend before sept 11?
3) how can a 47 storey building come down in a fire, look at the greenfell towers?
4) where was all the wreckage of the plane after hitting the pentagon?
5) The 9 11 comnssion stinks, it took them years to get around to it and they only allocated around 10 million to it . Bush tried to get a few of his "cronies" onto it, didn't he try to get kissenger on it ?.
6) Why was all the debris from the towers shipped abroad and destroyed ? Surely a major crime scene evidence is analyzed ?
7) No mention of building 7 in the report? how could this be?
6) why is there no footage of cctv shown from the pentagon?
8) with bush, cheney, rumsfeld, involved these guys are proven liars, nothing would suprise me with them involved.
9) Bush and cheney gave a co-testimony together for the commission and in secret not under oath.
10) Was it just a coincidence that there were war-games that day and no fighters available?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Maybe they weren't working. Maybe the camera footage from the fire station was as "grainy' as the other footage. I work in a high security building that is surrounded by cameras - none of them at point at the sky or the horizon, they all point down

"Sir we need to have CCTV cameras that film in good quality and point in every direction"

"Why?"

"Because if a plane did hit us, there might be people who wouldn't believe it unless they had clear footage of it"

That you thinking they have nothing to hide. The cameras were on the roof (pointing out) The plane came in at an elevated height you would have caught a part of the plane flying like the back fin, nose case, maybe even the aluminium casing. We also know the highway had a camera that was state of the art for 2001, it records the surroundings in front of it including the entire Pentagon west wall.

Dohnjoe

mikekerry wrote: »

1) phone calls made at 30,000 feet - how was this possible?

It was possible

2) why was there a power down in the twin towers for 30 hours on the weekend before sept 11?

Probably the same reason there are outages and planned outages all the time. To repair something, fix something.

3) how can a 47 storey building come down in a fire, look at the greenfell towers?

Steel-framed buildings have caught fire and not collapsed. However not many have been hit by planes or hit by debris, had their sprinkler systems malfunction and burnt unchecked for hours. That said there are steel-framed structures and buildings that have collapsed and partially collapsed due to fire.

4) where was all the wreckage of the plane after hitting the pentagon?

Everywhere, inside the building and out. You'll find the pics straight away in google

5) The 9 11 comnssion stinks, it took them years to get around to it and they only allocated around 10 million to it . Bush tried to get a few of his "cronies" onto it, didn't he try to get kissenger on it ?.

Dunno

6) Why was all the debris from the towers shipped abroad and destroyed ? Surely a major crime scene evidence is analyzed ?

No reason to keep thousands of tons of rubble and twisted steel I guess

7) No mention of building 7 in the report? how could this be?

Not sure which report you are referring to. Not much mention of the other WTC buildings that were destroyed or partially collapsed and were later demolished

6) why is there no footage of cctv shown from the pentagon?

As mentioned

8) with bush, cheney, rumsfeld, involved these guys are proven liars, nothing would suprise me with them involved.

Politicians.

9) Bush and cheney gave a co-testimony together for the commission and in secret not under oath.

If you consider them suspects for the treasonous murder of 3,000 of their countrymen in the most audacious risky cover-up inside job in history you need evidence. Personal suspicion means nothing.

10) Was it just a coincidence that there were war-games that day and no fighters available?

They were caught with their pants down. Reactions were slow and chaotic. Security was lax, cockpit doors unlocked, weak security checks in airports.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

That you thinking they have nothing to hide. The cameras were on the roof (pointing out) The plane came in at an elevated height you would have caught a part of the plane flying like the back fin, nose case, maybe even the aluminium casing. We also know the highway had a camera that was state of the art for 2001, it records the surroundings in front of it including the entire Pentagon west wall.

Maybe they were switched off, or worse were not functioning correctly. Maybe they have perfect video footage of the plane hitting and they don't want to release it for security reasons

The only people who want this footage are a handful of conspiracy theorists, why should the Pentagon give a seconds thought to be appeasing people like Alex Jones.

There's perfectly clear footage of the planes hitting the Twin Towers and people still don't believe it, so what's the point?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

They absolutely got the ball rolling but there was no need to go to such lengths to justify war in the middle east. The justification for Iraq was WMDs remember.

Leveling a large part of lower Manhattan just simply wasn't needed. A small bomb would've done it. Similar to 93.

And leveling buildings to destroy paper evidence is complete nonsense.

You do not realise they had a plan to take out seven countries in the middle east? This was going to be much bigger than just Afghanistan and Iraq. They planned this out in the 90s to change the middle east. The blueprint was signed off on in 1998 by the people who secured defence and security positions at the White House

( The project for American century neocon blueprint )https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

They could only carry out their plans when they could change government policy and this happened when Bush took office.

The War against Terror begun when the planes hit the buildings.

They could not link CIA- Al Qaeda to Saddam. They then just decided to fake intelligence to justify the war. They are war criminals they should be in jail for war crimes.

Why they levelled the buildings only they know. Maybe they needed a greater spectacle to get the public to support what they planned? If the towers stood and were just damaged would have affected American public less?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You do not realise they had a plan to take out seven countries in the middle east? This was going to be much bigger than just Afghanistan and Iraq. They planned this out in the 90s to change the middle east. The blueprint was signed off on in 1998 by the people who secured defence and security positions at the White House

Incredibly this is actually (well partially) true. There was a Neocon doctrine - essentially forced democracy, whereby preemptive warfare would be followed by regime change in a country, "and the rest would fall like dominoes", pioneered by hawks like Rove and Cheney. It was a (naive) notion to transform troubled dictatorships into flourishing democracies. They tried it with Iraq but it failed miserably.

Trying to claim that 911 was an inside job by Bush to go into Iraq is pf course absurd (not to mention completely without credible evidence) and the usual "appeal to motive" fallacy that conspiracy theorists engage in

CS, if you believe that 911 was insurance fraud for Larry Silverstein's lease on the buildings why are you now trying to suggest it was Bush, changed your mind already? or going the extra mile to include everyone in the conspiracy? why not make up that they were "working together"?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Incredibly this is actually (well partially) true. There was a Neocon doctrine - essentially forced democracy, whereby preemptive warfare would be followed by regime change in a country, "and the rest would fall like dominoes", pioneered by hawks like Rove and Cheney. It was a (naive) notion to transform troubled dictatorships into flourishing democracies. They tried it with Iraq but it failed miserably.

Trying to claim that 911 was an inside job by Bush to go into Iraq is pf course absurd (not to mention completely without credible evidence) and the usual "appeal to motive" fallacy that conspiracy theorists engage in

CS, if you believe that 911 was insurance fraud for Larry Silverstein's lease on the buildings why are you now trying to suggest it was Bush, changed your mind already? or going the extra mile to include everyone in the conspiracy? why not make up that they were "working together"?

How can they change the middle east without 9/11? How would they justify sending their military to war? The American public only went along with because of the 9/11 event. Do you think they did know that Rumsfield and Cheney and others? 9/11 happened on their watch is very suspicious.

It no coincidence Al Qaeda CIA started to hit US targets after the Soviet Union fell. America always needs an enemy the fall of the Soviet Union, the next boogeyman was Al Qaeda. A group that the CIA trained and armed by the way and they knew who Bin Laden was way before 9/11.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can they change the middle east without 9/11? How would they justify sending their military to war? The American public only went along with because of the 9/11 event.

They didn't go along with it. Millions protested. USA originally requested Bin Laden be extradited. If they had have done that there likely would've been no Afghan invasion. Which didn't require anyone to agree to. They were in Afghanistan 3 weeks later.

The funding for Iraq was secured because of the WMD lie. Pinning it all on 9/11 is very simplistic.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

How can they change the middle east without 9/11? How would they justify sending their military to war? The American public only went along with because of the 9/11 event. Do you think they did know that Rumsfield and Cheney and others? 9/11 happened on their watch is very suspicious.

Appeal to motive fallacy again

They went into Afghanistan one month after 911. It's highly unlikely they would have gone into Afghanistan in October 2001 if 911 didn't happen. According to your "suspicion" based logic they pulled off 911 as an inside job to go into Afghanistan

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Appeal to motive fallacy again

They went into Afghanistan one month after 911. It's highly unlikely they would have gone into Afghanistan in October 2001 if 911 didn't happen. According to your "suspicion" based logic they pulled off 911 as an inside job to go into Afghanistan

They pulled off 9/11 so they take out seven countries. Iraq did go well so that changed everything. They eventually did take out Libya. And Syria adventure was supported by the United States and not questioning its allies Saudi Arabia and UAE arming jihadists to take out Assad.

Money to be made fighting wars. Do you think 600 billion dollars military budget is nothing?

Iran and Lebanon, war with them for likely in the future.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They pulled off 9/11 so they take out seven countries.

They went into Afghanistan directly after 911. Therefore according to you they pulled off 911 to go into Afghanistan. If you are going to use faulty logic at least try to apply it fairly.

But you just prefer to skip to Iraq in your storybook of made-up world history

Money to be made fighting wars.

Appeal to motive fallacy once again. There is money to be made fighting any war. Therefore it could be (tenuously) argued that each and every war was an inside job motivated by the bottom lines of companies that profit from those wars

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They went into Afghanistan directly after 911. Therefore according to you they pulled off 911 to go into Afghanistan. If you are going to use faulty logic at least try to apply it fairly.

But you just prefer to skip to Iraq in your storybook of made-up world history



Appeal to motive fallacy once again. There is money to be made fighting any war. Therefore it could be (tenuously) argued that each and every war was an inside job motivated by the bottom lines of companies that profit from those wars

They had to go after the people they accused of doing 9/11.. Are you claiming they made no money fighting the Afganistan war? Military industrial complex did not see better profits?

A motive to attack them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

That's the reality. Middle East oil is an important world resource.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They had to go after the people they accused of doing 9/11.. Are you claiming they made no money fighting the Afganistan war? Military industrial complex did not see better profits?

A motive to attack them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

That's the reality. Middle East oil is an important world resource.

Contradicting yourself a lot today. A tough day for you.

That was a half arsed plan and never completed. Even says so in your wikipedia link. Yet another Wikipedia link. The war wasn't about oil.

Wikiquoting at its worst.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Contradicting yourself a lot today. A tough day for you.

That was a half arsed plan and never completed. Even says so in your wikipedia link. Yet another Wikipedia link. The war wasn't about oil.

Wikiquoting at its worst.

The Taliban is not defeated. How can they build the pipeline then? Does not mean they did envision building it pre 9/11.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They had to go after the people they accused of doing 9/11

Larry Silverstein planned 911 to go after an "innocent" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

This is getting very weird

.. Are you claiming they made no money fighting the Afganistan war? Military industrial complex did not see better profits?

Uh so the reason is now war profits? not Al Qaeda?

A motive to attack them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

That's the reality. Middle East oil is an important world resource.

Woah, easy there tiger, 3 motives in one post. Which one is it? (screw go for all of them, that's what Alex Jones would do)

Ipso

So how does WTC link to a pipeline?
Were the illuminatinsitting a round moaning about their ills, and someone came up with a plan that would solve all of them?

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Larry Silverstein planned 911 to go after an "innocent" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

This is getting very weird



Uh so the reason is now war profits? not Al Qaeda?



Woah, easy there tiger, 3 motives in one post. Which one is it? (screw go for all of them, that's what Alex Jones would do)

I said his suspect. All three buildings belong to him. He a good friend of Netanyahu, the prime minister of Isreal and has been a friend to other leaders of Israel. Silverstein obviously is a neocon-friendly businessman

Before you ask I don't know if Israel intelligence services were involved in carrying out 9/11? I suspect they had preknowledge at the very least.

This is one of the better 9/11 documentaries. It talks to people who saw the hijackers before 9/11 and very weird how they acted in public. They were not crazy Islamic fanatics that the media tries to portray them as. The documentary also explores where they got flying lessons and talks to the flight instructors.

Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I said his suspect.

Nope, you claimed it as fact. 100% Silverstein was involved.

But it's a Wednesday so I'll understand if your view has changed

The Nal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Larry Silverstein planned 911 to go after an "innocent" Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

This is getting very weird

This is getting very funny.

Al Qaeda are innocent, despite them admitting to it and Bin Laden being on video talking about it.

Larry is guilty despite there being no evidence apart from him casually admitting it on tv.

Comedy gold.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

This is getting very funny.

Al Qaeda are innocent, despite them admitting to it and Bin Laden being on video talking about it.

Larry is guilty despite there being no evidence apart from him casually admitting it on tv.

Comedy gold.

Bin Laden denied he did 9/11 you should look it up.

Six days after the attacks. He released a statement to an Arab channel. Why would he deny the attacks?
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Bin Laden denied he did 9/11 you should look it up.

Six days after the attacks. He released a statement to an Arab channel. Why would he deny the attacks?
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

lol.

You know nothing about the 1993 bombing, Khalid Mohammed, Al Qaeda or their activities in the 90s.

Love this "why would he lie?" about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama fcuking Bin Laden. hahaha.

King Mob

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

You know nothing about the 1993 bombing, Khalid Mohammed, Al Qaeda or their activities in the 90s.

Love this "why would he lie?" about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama fcuking Bin Laden. hahaha.

And remember, the guy who apparently did it, or at least was highly involved, admitted it directly to camera.

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

And remember, the guy who apparently did it, or at least was highly involved, admitted it directly to camera.

Which is the "key" piece of evidence, nothing else

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol.

You know nothing about the 1993 bombing, Khalid Mohammed, Al Qaeda or their activities in the 90s.

Love this "why would he lie?" about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama fcuking Bin Laden. hahaha.

The 1993 bombing and was not done by Al Qaeda? You don't find it strange Al Qaeda never existed prior to the early 90s? This group just appeared out of nowhere when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no big enemy to fight?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured tortured and kept in prison for over a decade. Not allowed a public trial and can't tell his side of the story.

Bin laden admission on video is discredited info.

On December 13, 2001, the United States State Department released a video tape apparently showing bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi and other associates, somewhere in Afghanistan, before the U.S. invasion had driven the Taliban regime from Kandahar.

Actual reality
On December 20, 2001, German TV channel "Das Erste" broadcast an analysis of the White House's translation of the videotape. On the program "Monitor", two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation to be both inaccurate and manipulative stating "At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic" and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original. Prof. Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg said "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you
listen to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_and_audio_recordings_of_Osama_bin_Laden

The Nal

hahaha. What about all the other audio and video recordings on the link you provided?

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

hahaha. What about all the other audio and video recordings on the link you provided?

Why would he deny the attacks in the first place? Jihadists are proud of the terrorist actions they carry out. It's very weird Bin Laden would deny involvement, after all, he was the guru of Al Qaeda and he send the 19 hijackers to carry out the attacks in America?

Have I not shown you already the US manipulated the recordings for their own purposes. Of course, you just ignore the info I highlighted in black writing. Why did the Americans place false subtitles on the video?

King Mob

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would he deny the attacks in the first place? Jihadists are proud of the terrorist actions they carry out. It's very weird Bin Laden would deny involvement, after all, he was the guru of Al Qaeda and he send the 19 hijackers to carry out the attacks in America?

But then it's perfectly normal for the real person behind it to admit it on camera for no reason?

Again, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that anyone is taking your seriously.

Cheerful Spring

King Mob wrote: »

But then it's perfectly normal for the real person behind it to admit it on camera for no reason?

Again, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that anyone is taking your seriously.

You not answering my question. Why would he deny involvement? Bin Laden is an alleged terrorist and he just pulled off the greatest terrorist act ever in the history of the world. This was a monumental achievement for him, but he denies the movement he created did it and even released audio to Arab channel saying this was not done by his group.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You not answering my question. Why would he deny involvement? Bin Laden is an alleged terrorist and he just pulled off the greatest terrorist act ever in the history of the world. This was a monumental achievement for him, but he denies the movement he created did it and even released audio to Arab channel saying this was not done by his group.

Why did he admit to it in the end but not initially? Are you now accusing Bin Laden of being a liar?!

Maybe, just maybe, he didn't want the US to come after them as they had other attacks planned. And he was always fearful of further US invasions of Muslim lands.

Larry Silverstein though. Casually admitting to killing 3000 people. Countless friends and colleagues amongst them. Made widows of a lot of his friends wives.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The 1993 bombing and was not done by Al Qaeda?

Yes it was, since you've decided to suddenly start (selectively) using wikipedia here's a handy section on the whole thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe, he didn't want the US to come after him as he had other attacks planned.

Larry Silverstein though. Casually admitting to killing 3000 people. Countless friends and colleagues amongst them.

Did not want the US to come after him? Are you serious this your best explanation? Forgot that the US was targetting Al Qaeda and its leadership for the USS Cole attack.

The problem is the announced the collapse half an hour before it actually occurred. So you can deny it all you like but nobody could have predicted a girder on one floor would collapse suddenly and cause a cascade of floors across the width of the building. NIST theory is this and why the building fell.

Silverstein lied, of course, you don't question this. Telling his spokesperson to lie about firefighters fighting fires inside WTC7. Even the fire chief who was linked with Silverstein denies talking to him on the day.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yes it was, since you've decided to suddenly start (selectively) using wikipedia here's a handy section on the whole thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Information in your own link
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to "Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion".[11]

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Information in your own link
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to "Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion".[11]

Have you read his book?