9/11 was the game plan made by former president George Bush in his hate towards Muslim community and Muslim countries all over the world.on the basis of that 9/11 event America attacked many Muslim countries,about 2.5 million people died from that day and they all were innocent,which were pushed to that war according to the game plan.
Bush was a damn puppet and he just played written scenary 
Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 34. (Read 54943 times)
9/11 was the game plan made by former president George Bush in his hate towards Muslim community and Muslim countries all over the world.on the basis of that 9/11 event America attacked many Muslim countries,about 2.5 million people died from that day and they all were innocent,which were pushed to that war according to the game plan.
No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.
...
What the hell are you talking about?
Let's see if I can piece it together. You have taken a particular plan, which was never used because it was judged ridiculous....
'Operation Northwoods' may or may or not have been judged 'ridiculous' by the president, but only after it was presented to him as a serious proposal which it all the way through his chain of command. He rejected it for one reason or another. Rumor has it that he was miffed that it made it all the way to him and he gave a pretty powerful presentation to the American people about quasi-political elements who operate in secret trying to and succeeding in getting things to happen.
Kennedy was subsequently assassinated in case you didn't know.
So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....
Here is your problem. You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it......
That's called lying.
Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.
I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.
No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.
I don't have to read anymore. You are still wondering where the people and planes may have gone. Same place as the fake plane in Operation Northwoods maybe?
Maybe this will guide you....
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
Appendix to
Enclosure A
10
Page 14
stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
"sell" the incident.
You are the easy "sell".
Let's see if I can piece it together. You have taken a particular plan, which was never used because it was judged ridiculous. You then note that certain aspects of it, if applied to 911, would explain certain aspects of 911 being done by the US Government, instead of the Muslims who say they did 911.Is that what you are trying to allege here? Sort of a "could have might have" way that the US Government could be responsible for running planes into towers?
It's important to set forth the basic tenets of your conspiracy theory because not only do I likely disagree with you but so do most other 911 conspiracy theorists. They all have DIFFERENT conspiracy theories, you see.....
These range from "no planes hit towers, to missiles hit towers, on and on and on."
And so you are claiming that the US has full sized Boeing 767 drone aircraft? Is that correct? If so, why wouldn't it be equally plausible that any OTHER GOVERNMENT could have done the same thing?
A good conspiracy theory that places the blame on the US Government usually presumes that certain secret or advanced capabilities of the US Government would be required for the conspiracy theory to work. But wouldn't just repainting an airplane be something that anyone could do?
Sound to me like you don't have a very good theory there at all.
I entirely agree with this. The question is, how can it work?
Consider the Mafia. Mafia is family. They unite themselves against every enemy. But when the enemies aren't around, they squabble within.
Jews are a family like the Mafia. The difference is, they are firmly united around religion. They barely fight within. They think alike. They act alike. They have the same goals. They work together. If their intelligence - which is great - were a little bit greater, they would formally rule the world.
Only God holds them at bay. Thank God!
....
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
...
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
...
I have NO IDEA what you are trying to get at. Let me help you out by summarizing these events.
Bin Laden, a follower of evil Islamic branch started by Sayyad Qutb, did bad things and the USA targeted him.
Iman al-Zawahiri was the follower of fellow Egyptian Qutb. Bin Laden was very probably a CIA asset who provided a money spigot to groups logged in a dataBASE (where the word Al Qaeda originated.) Nobody ever pin-pointed when Bin Laden ceased to be a CIA asset. I suspect never.
Eventually we killed him.
So the story goes (whoever 'we' is supposed to be.) Another version is that bin Laden died a decade ago since he was somewhat sick with kidney problems. Of course he lived on in the media fairy-tales since it was convenient to scare the sheeple. Given the far fetched tails spun about 9/11 and the 'GWOT', I'm inclined to believe that the latter is probably closer to the truth.
After we killed him, charges against him were dropped.
What is the point of pursuing criminal charges against a dead man?
Transparency. If anything vaguely solid was produced as actual evidence in an actual trial then maybe there would be fewer doubters. If they had not been so weird about this stuff I would not have been so suspicious. Now I'm not accepting anything but independently verified information. When it comes to the GWOT (and a lot of other stuff) I consider whatever the government puts out to probably be bullshit and often 100% fabrication. That is the true cost of being deceitful. "Fool me once.."
It's well known that Bin Laden was the prime student of Sayyad Qutb. I agree, others were - because this is the radical islam that believes in violence against innocents. So all involved believed in this crap.
"Ceased to be a CIA asset?" That makes no sense. Like how, a driver's license expiring? So the CIA gave some money and help to a group he was in way back when. That does not matter, those little groups take money in the moment from whoever suits them. That's the way it is.
RE Bin Laden's death. I'm okay with various theories on the when, where and how of his death. You might call this a "minor conspiracy," lol.
RE pursuing criminal charges against a dead man.
AFAIK it can't be done. You could have a civil case though. That would possibly show some interesting things, but so much might be classified that I'm not sure where such a case would go. Six lawsuits were brought against the bin laden family's construction company, but they were dismissed.
http://www.ibtimes.com/bin-laden-family-lawsuit-911-victims-dismissed-656299
28 Blank Pages: Washington’s Cover-Up Of The Saudi Role In The 9/11 Terrorist Attack Continues
In light of today's 60 Minutes segment, according to which classified "28 pages" may shed light on Saudi ties to terrorism, here is a an article which was originally posted in the December 2015 edition of Future of Freedom. More to follow tomorrow.
28 Blank Pages: Washington’s Cover-Up Of The Saudi Role In The 9/11 Terrorist Attack Continues
Do Americans have the right to learn whether a foreign government helped finance the 9/11 attacks? A growing number of congressmen and senators are demanding that a 28-page portion of a 2002 congressional report finally be declassified. The Obama administration appears to be resisting, and the stakes are huge. What is contained in those pages could radically change Americans’ perspective on the war on terror.
The congressional Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, completed its investigation in December 2002. But the Bush administration stonewalled the release of the 838-page report until mid 2003 — after its invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli — and totally suppressed a key portion. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) chairman of the investigation, declared that “there is compelling evidence in the 28 pages that one or more foreign governments was involved in assisting some of the hijackers in their preparation for 9/11.” Graham later indicated that the Saudis were the guilty party. But disclosing Saudi links to 9/11 could have undermined efforts by some Bush administration officials to tie Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
Almost everyone has forgotten how hard the Bush administration fought to torpedo that report. In April 2003, controversy raged on Capitol Hill over the Bush administration’s continuing efforts to suppress almost all of the report by the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation. Some intelligence officials even insisted on “reclassifying” as secret some of the information that had already been discussed in public hearings, such as the FBI Phoenix Memo. On May 13, Senator Graham accused the Bush administration of engaging in a “cover-up” and said that the report from the congressional investigation “has not been released because it is, frankly, embarrassing … embarrassing as to what happened before September 11th, but maybe even more so the fact that the lessons of September 11th are not being applied today to reduce the vulnerability of the American people.” Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) complained that intelligence agencies sought to totally censor the report: “The initial thing that came back was absolutely an insult, and it would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting, because they redacted half of what we had. A lot of it was to redact a word that revealed nothing.”
When the report was finally released, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) added an additional opinion in which he castigated “the FBI’s dismal recent history of disorganization and institutional incompetence in its national-security work.” The congressional report was far blunter than the subsequent 9/11 Commission. The congressional investigation concluded that the FBI’s “mixed record of attention contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists.” But the Bush administration may have succeeded in stonewalling the most damaging revelations.
Suppressing the 28 pages was intensely controversial at the time. Senator Shelby, the vice chairman of the joint inquiry, urged declassification of almost all of the 28 pages because “the American people are crying out to know more about who funds, aids, and abets terrorist activities in the world.” Forty-six senators, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and including almost all the Democratic members, signed a letter to President George W. Bush urging the release of the 28 pages.
Bush, at a July 30, 2003 press conference, justified suppressing the 28 pages:
We have an ongoing investigation about what may or may not have taken place prior to September the 11th. And therefore, it is important for us to hold this information close so that those who are being investigated aren’t alerted…. If we were to reveal the content of the document, 29 [sic] pages of a near-900-page report, it would reveal sources and methods. By that, I mean it would show people how we collect information and on whom we’re collecting information, which, in my judgment, and in the judgment of senior law-enforcement officials in my administration, would be harmful on the war against terror.
And then he dangled a carrot: “Now, at some point in time, as we make progress on the investigation, and as a threat to our national security diminishes, perhaps we can put out the document. But in my judgment, now is not the time to do so.”
Protecting incompetence
The claim of secrecy is routinely a cloak for incompetence. As former Senator Graham said earlier this year, “Much of what passes for classification for national-security reasons is really classified because it would disclose incompetence. And since the people who are classifying are also often the subject of the materials, they have an institutional interest in avoiding exposure of their incompetence.”
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) revived the push to declassify the pages in 2013. Jones is a conservative stalwart best known for coining the phrase “freedom fries” in 2003 when France opposed invading Iraq. He has since become one of the most outspoken opponents of reckless U.S. intervention abroad. He explained that he introduced a resolution because “the American people deserve the truth. Releasing these pages will enhance our national security, not harm it.”
Jones further explained that “the information contained in the redacted pages is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American public. If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help — particularly from one or more foreign governments — the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to all of the perpetrators.”
Last May, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) fresh from a bracing filibuster against the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, joined the 28-page fight. He introduced the Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The suppressed pages are another wedge between Paul and other Republican presidential candidates: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rejects declassification, instead urging deference to the president’s judgment on the issue. A person attending a recent New Hampshire event asked Christie, “Don’t we have a right to know?” Christie replied, “That’s for the president of the United States to decide.… [The] question is: In his judgment and the judgment of the people in the national-security apparatus, do they believe there’s something in there that’s classified that would cause harm or danger to American interests?” But cravenness is never a good recipe for safety.
Members of Congress can read the still-classified pages in a special secure room on Capitol Hill if they get prior permission from the House or Senate Intelligence Committee. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of the few members to read the report, was shocked: “I had to stop every couple of pages and just sort of absorb and try to rearrange my understanding of history for the past 13 years and the years leading up to that. It challenges you to rethink everything.” Massie is one of 18 co-sponsors of Jones’s resolution in the House.
Too much trouble
It is encouraging that the effort spearheaded by Congressman Jones has garnered support on Capitol Hill. But it is surprising that the 28-page disclosure campaign has not yet spurred far more members of Congress to read the document. Unfortunately, members of Congress were also grossly negligent when it came to the evidence to justify invading Iraq. In October 2002, prior to the vote on the congressional resolution to permit Bush to do as he pleased on Iraq, the CIA delivered a 92-page classified assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to Capitol Hill. The classified CIA report raised far more doubts about the existence of Iraqi WMDs than did the five-page executive summary that all members of Congress received. The report was stored in two secure rooms — one each for the House and the Senate. Only six senators bothered to visit the room to look at the report, and only a “handful” of House members did the same, according to the Washington Post. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) explained that congressmen were too busy to read the report: “Everyone in the world wants to come to see you” in your office, and going to the secure room is “not easy to do.” Hundreds of thousands of Americans were sent 6,000 miles away to swelter for months in burning deserts because congressmen could not be bothered to walk across the street. Most congressmen had ample time to give saber-rattling speeches for war, but no time to sift the purported evidence for the invasion.
Why is the Obama administration continuing to suppress a report completed more than a dozen years ago? It is not as if the White House’s credibility would be damaged by revelations of Saudi bankrolling the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis).
And it is not as if the Saudis became squeaky-clean Boy Scouts after 9/11. Saudi sources are widely reported to be bankrolling Islamic State terrorists throughout the Middle East; Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last September, “I know major Arab allies who fund [ISIS].”
Barack Obama just ordered more U.S. troops to Iraq to seek to rebuff the ISIS onslaught. If the Saudis are helping sow fresh chaos in the Middle East, that is another reason to disclose their role in an attack that helped launch conflicts that have already cost thousands of American lives and more than $1.6 trillion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“Don’t confuse me with the facts” should be the motto of the war on terror. Self-government is an illusion if politicians can shroud the most important details driving federal policy. If Americans have learned anything since 9/11, it should be the folly of deferring to http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/cover-damning-911-report-continues/Washington secrecy.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10/28-blank-pages-washington%E2%80%99s-cover-saudi-role-911-terrorist-attack-continues
In light of today's 60 Minutes segment, according to which classified "28 pages" may shed light on Saudi ties to terrorism, here is a an article which was originally posted in the December 2015 edition of Future of Freedom. More to follow tomorrow.
28 Blank Pages: Washington’s Cover-Up Of The Saudi Role In The 9/11 Terrorist Attack Continues
Do Americans have the right to learn whether a foreign government helped finance the 9/11 attacks? A growing number of congressmen and senators are demanding that a 28-page portion of a 2002 congressional report finally be declassified. The Obama administration appears to be resisting, and the stakes are huge. What is contained in those pages could radically change Americans’ perspective on the war on terror.
The congressional Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, completed its investigation in December 2002. But the Bush administration stonewalled the release of the 838-page report until mid 2003 — after its invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli — and totally suppressed a key portion. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) chairman of the investigation, declared that “there is compelling evidence in the 28 pages that one or more foreign governments was involved in assisting some of the hijackers in their preparation for 9/11.” Graham later indicated that the Saudis were the guilty party. But disclosing Saudi links to 9/11 could have undermined efforts by some Bush administration officials to tie Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
Almost everyone has forgotten how hard the Bush administration fought to torpedo that report. In April 2003, controversy raged on Capitol Hill over the Bush administration’s continuing efforts to suppress almost all of the report by the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation. Some intelligence officials even insisted on “reclassifying” as secret some of the information that had already been discussed in public hearings, such as the FBI Phoenix Memo. On May 13, Senator Graham accused the Bush administration of engaging in a “cover-up” and said that the report from the congressional investigation “has not been released because it is, frankly, embarrassing … embarrassing as to what happened before September 11th, but maybe even more so the fact that the lessons of September 11th are not being applied today to reduce the vulnerability of the American people.” Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) complained that intelligence agencies sought to totally censor the report: “The initial thing that came back was absolutely an insult, and it would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting, because they redacted half of what we had. A lot of it was to redact a word that revealed nothing.”
When the report was finally released, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) added an additional opinion in which he castigated “the FBI’s dismal recent history of disorganization and institutional incompetence in its national-security work.” The congressional report was far blunter than the subsequent 9/11 Commission. The congressional investigation concluded that the FBI’s “mixed record of attention contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists.” But the Bush administration may have succeeded in stonewalling the most damaging revelations.
Suppressing the 28 pages was intensely controversial at the time. Senator Shelby, the vice chairman of the joint inquiry, urged declassification of almost all of the 28 pages because “the American people are crying out to know more about who funds, aids, and abets terrorist activities in the world.” Forty-six senators, spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and including almost all the Democratic members, signed a letter to President George W. Bush urging the release of the 28 pages.
Bush, at a July 30, 2003 press conference, justified suppressing the 28 pages:
We have an ongoing investigation about what may or may not have taken place prior to September the 11th. And therefore, it is important for us to hold this information close so that those who are being investigated aren’t alerted…. If we were to reveal the content of the document, 29 [sic] pages of a near-900-page report, it would reveal sources and methods. By that, I mean it would show people how we collect information and on whom we’re collecting information, which, in my judgment, and in the judgment of senior law-enforcement officials in my administration, would be harmful on the war against terror.
And then he dangled a carrot: “Now, at some point in time, as we make progress on the investigation, and as a threat to our national security diminishes, perhaps we can put out the document. But in my judgment, now is not the time to do so.”
Protecting incompetence
The claim of secrecy is routinely a cloak for incompetence. As former Senator Graham said earlier this year, “Much of what passes for classification for national-security reasons is really classified because it would disclose incompetence. And since the people who are classifying are also often the subject of the materials, they have an institutional interest in avoiding exposure of their incompetence.”
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) revived the push to declassify the pages in 2013. Jones is a conservative stalwart best known for coining the phrase “freedom fries” in 2003 when France opposed invading Iraq. He has since become one of the most outspoken opponents of reckless U.S. intervention abroad. He explained that he introduced a resolution because “the American people deserve the truth. Releasing these pages will enhance our national security, not harm it.”
Jones further explained that “the information contained in the redacted pages is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American public. If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help — particularly from one or more foreign governments — the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to all of the perpetrators.”
Last May, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) fresh from a bracing filibuster against the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, joined the 28-page fight. He introduced the Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The suppressed pages are another wedge between Paul and other Republican presidential candidates: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rejects declassification, instead urging deference to the president’s judgment on the issue. A person attending a recent New Hampshire event asked Christie, “Don’t we have a right to know?” Christie replied, “That’s for the president of the United States to decide.… [The] question is: In his judgment and the judgment of the people in the national-security apparatus, do they believe there’s something in there that’s classified that would cause harm or danger to American interests?” But cravenness is never a good recipe for safety.
Members of Congress can read the still-classified pages in a special secure room on Capitol Hill if they get prior permission from the House or Senate Intelligence Committee. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of the few members to read the report, was shocked: “I had to stop every couple of pages and just sort of absorb and try to rearrange my understanding of history for the past 13 years and the years leading up to that. It challenges you to rethink everything.” Massie is one of 18 co-sponsors of Jones’s resolution in the House.
Too much trouble
It is encouraging that the effort spearheaded by Congressman Jones has garnered support on Capitol Hill. But it is surprising that the 28-page disclosure campaign has not yet spurred far more members of Congress to read the document. Unfortunately, members of Congress were also grossly negligent when it came to the evidence to justify invading Iraq. In October 2002, prior to the vote on the congressional resolution to permit Bush to do as he pleased on Iraq, the CIA delivered a 92-page classified assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to Capitol Hill. The classified CIA report raised far more doubts about the existence of Iraqi WMDs than did the five-page executive summary that all members of Congress received. The report was stored in two secure rooms — one each for the House and the Senate. Only six senators bothered to visit the room to look at the report, and only a “handful” of House members did the same, according to the Washington Post. Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) explained that congressmen were too busy to read the report: “Everyone in the world wants to come to see you” in your office, and going to the secure room is “not easy to do.” Hundreds of thousands of Americans were sent 6,000 miles away to swelter for months in burning deserts because congressmen could not be bothered to walk across the street. Most congressmen had ample time to give saber-rattling speeches for war, but no time to sift the purported evidence for the invasion.
Why is the Obama administration continuing to suppress a report completed more than a dozen years ago? It is not as if the White House’s credibility would be damaged by revelations of Saudi bankrolling the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis).
And it is not as if the Saudis became squeaky-clean Boy Scouts after 9/11. Saudi sources are widely reported to be bankrolling Islamic State terrorists throughout the Middle East; Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last September, “I know major Arab allies who fund [ISIS].”
Barack Obama just ordered more U.S. troops to Iraq to seek to rebuff the ISIS onslaught. If the Saudis are helping sow fresh chaos in the Middle East, that is another reason to disclose their role in an attack that helped launch conflicts that have already cost thousands of American lives and more than $1.6 trillion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“Don’t confuse me with the facts” should be the motto of the war on terror. Self-government is an illusion if politicians can shroud the most important details driving federal policy. If Americans have learned anything since 9/11, it should be the folly of deferring to http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/cover-damning-911-report-continues/Washington secrecy.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10/28-blank-pages-washington%E2%80%99s-cover-saudi-role-911-terrorist-attack-continues
....
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
...
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
...
I have NO IDEA what you are trying to get at. Let me help you out by summarizing these events.
Bin Laden, a follower of evil Islamic branch started by Sayyad Qutb, did bad things and the USA targeted him.
Iman al-Zawahiri was the follower of fellow Egyptian Qutb. Bin Laden was very probably a CIA asset who provided a money spigot to groups logged in a dataBASE (where the word Al Qaeda originated.) Nobody ever pin-pointed when Bin Laden ceased to be a CIA asset. I suspect never.
Eventually we killed him.
So the story goes (whoever 'we' is supposed to be.) Another version is that bin Laden died a decade ago since he was somewhat sick with kidney problems. Of course he lived on in the media fairy-tales since it was convenient to scare the sheeple. Given the far fetched tails spun about 9/11 and the 'GWOT', I'm inclined to believe that the latter is probably closer to the truth.
After we killed him, charges against him were dropped.
What is the point of pursuing criminal charges against a dead man?
Transparency. If anything vaguely solid was produced as actual evidence in an actual trial then maybe there would be fewer doubters. If they had not been so weird about this stuff I would not have been so suspicious. Now I'm not accepting anything but independently verified information. When it comes to the GWOT (and a lot of other stuff) I consider whatever the government puts out to probably be bullshit and often 100% fabrication. That is the true cost of being deceitful. "Fool me once.."
....
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
A U.S. judge has dismissed all criminal charges against Osama bin Laden following the al Qaeda leader's death in a military raid in Pakistan.
U.S. District Court judge Lewis Kaplan, who had been presiding over the bin Laden case in Manhattan federal court, issued an order called 'nolle prosequi', which means 'do not prosecute' in Latin, a typical legal move once a defendant is deceased.
It closed the case after 13 years.
Bin Laden was indicted back in 1998 in the Southern District of New York for his role in the al Qaeda attack on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.
The indictment was later revised to charge bin Laden in the dual bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed 224 on August 7, 1998, and in the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000. None of the charges involved the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The court filing included an affidavit by a senior U.S. Department of Justice official describing the U.S. military raid on bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html#ixzz45M5xQPjD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
A U.S. judge has dismissed all criminal charges against Osama bin Laden following the al Qaeda leader's death in a military raid in Pakistan.
U.S. District Court judge Lewis Kaplan, who had been presiding over the bin Laden case in Manhattan federal court, issued an order called 'nolle prosequi', which means 'do not prosecute' in Latin, a typical legal move once a defendant is deceased.
It closed the case after 13 years.
Bin Laden was indicted back in 1998 in the Southern District of New York for his role in the al Qaeda attack on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.
The indictment was later revised to charge bin Laden in the dual bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed 224 on August 7, 1998, and in the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000. None of the charges involved the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The court filing included an affidavit by a senior U.S. Department of Justice official describing the U.S. military raid on bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html#ixzz45M5xQPjD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have NO IDEA what you are trying to get at. Let me help you out by summarizing these events.
Bin Laden, a follower of evil Islamic branch started by Sayyad Qutb, did bad things and the USA targeted him.
Eventually we killed him.
After we killed him, charges against him were dropped.
What is the point of pursuing criminal charges against a dead man?
60 Minutes to Report on 28 Pages Said to Link 9/11, Saudi Arabia
The drive to declassify 28 pages from a congressional intelligence inquiry that detail specific indications of foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers is about to be put under a powerful spotlight, as 60 Minutes will air a segment on the topic this Sunday, April 10 at 7 pm ET/PT.
According to the CBS News preview of the story, Steve Kroft interviewed former senator Bob Graham, former congressman and CIA director Porter Goss, former 9/11 Commission members Bob Kerrey and John Lehman, lawyers representing 9/11 family members suing Saudi Arabia and former congressman Tim Roemer, who served on both the inquiry that produced the 28 pages and the 9/11 Commission that followed that inquiry.
Report to Air on Eve of Obama Visit to Saudi Arabia
The high-profile 60 Minutes segment—which is positioned for high viewership as it follows coverage of the Masters Tournament—comes at a particularly sensitive time for the White House, as the president will visit Saudi Arabia on April 21. 9/11 family members say that, in 2009 and 2011, Obama assured them he would declassify the 28 pages, yet that promise has gone unfulfilled.
Former Senator Bob Graham
Former Senator Bob Graham
Graham, who co-chaired the inquiry that wrote the 28 pages, has said, “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.” He has also said that, by shielding Saudi Arabia from scrutiny of its sponsorship of Sunni extremism, the continued classification has encouraged their continued sponsorship and paved the way for the rise of ISIS.
Congressman Thomas Massie described the experience of reading the pages as “shocking” and said, “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”
Congressmen Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and Massie are leading an effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to declassify the 28 pages: Their House Resolution 14, which urges the president to declassify the material, has 41 cosponsors. A similar measure, Senate Bill 1471, was introduced by Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden and cosponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand.
Review of 28 Pages Nears Its Third Year
In response to heightened media attention to the 28 pages in September 2014, the White House said the president, earlier that summer, tasked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper with conducting an intelligence community review of the 28 pages for potential declassification.
Inexplicably, and with essentially no follow-up by national media to date, that review of just 28 pages has already taken far longer than the entire, unprecedented congressional inquiry that produced them. As we reported here last summer, in just six months the 2002 inquiry:
Reviewed nearly a half million pages of documents from intelligence agencies and other sources
Conducted roughly 300 interviews
Participated in briefings and panel discussions involving about 600 people from the intelligence community, other government departments, state and local entities, foreign government representatives and other individuals
Held 13 closed-door sessions and nine public hearings
Dueled with intelligence agencies and the White House over many aspects of the inquiry’s undertaking, including requests for information and the format of the final report
Wrote, edited and revised an 838-page report on the inquiry’s findings
A separate evaluation, under a process called Mandatory Declassification Review, was initiated in 2014 by an attorney representing investigative journalists Dan Christensen, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Like the review requested by the president, it is still pending as the Obama administration nears its final months.
https://28pages.org/2016/04/08/60-minutes-to-report-on-28-pages-said-to-link-911-saudi-arabia/
The drive to declassify 28 pages from a congressional intelligence inquiry that detail specific indications of foreign government support of the 9/11 hijackers is about to be put under a powerful spotlight, as 60 Minutes will air a segment on the topic this Sunday, April 10 at 7 pm ET/PT.
According to the CBS News preview of the story, Steve Kroft interviewed former senator Bob Graham, former congressman and CIA director Porter Goss, former 9/11 Commission members Bob Kerrey and John Lehman, lawyers representing 9/11 family members suing Saudi Arabia and former congressman Tim Roemer, who served on both the inquiry that produced the 28 pages and the 9/11 Commission that followed that inquiry.
Report to Air on Eve of Obama Visit to Saudi Arabia
The high-profile 60 Minutes segment—which is positioned for high viewership as it follows coverage of the Masters Tournament—comes at a particularly sensitive time for the White House, as the president will visit Saudi Arabia on April 21. 9/11 family members say that, in 2009 and 2011, Obama assured them he would declassify the 28 pages, yet that promise has gone unfulfilled.
Former Senator Bob Graham
Former Senator Bob Graham
Graham, who co-chaired the inquiry that wrote the 28 pages, has said, “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.” He has also said that, by shielding Saudi Arabia from scrutiny of its sponsorship of Sunni extremism, the continued classification has encouraged their continued sponsorship and paved the way for the rise of ISIS.
Congressman Thomas Massie described the experience of reading the pages as “shocking” and said, “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”
Congressmen Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and Massie are leading an effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to declassify the 28 pages: Their House Resolution 14, which urges the president to declassify the material, has 41 cosponsors. A similar measure, Senate Bill 1471, was introduced by Senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden and cosponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand.
Review of 28 Pages Nears Its Third Year
In response to heightened media attention to the 28 pages in September 2014, the White House said the president, earlier that summer, tasked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper with conducting an intelligence community review of the 28 pages for potential declassification.
Inexplicably, and with essentially no follow-up by national media to date, that review of just 28 pages has already taken far longer than the entire, unprecedented congressional inquiry that produced them. As we reported here last summer, in just six months the 2002 inquiry:
Reviewed nearly a half million pages of documents from intelligence agencies and other sources
Conducted roughly 300 interviews
Participated in briefings and panel discussions involving about 600 people from the intelligence community, other government departments, state and local entities, foreign government representatives and other individuals
Held 13 closed-door sessions and nine public hearings
Dueled with intelligence agencies and the White House over many aspects of the inquiry’s undertaking, including requests for information and the format of the final report
Wrote, edited and revised an 838-page report on the inquiry’s findings
A separate evaluation, under a process called Mandatory Declassification Review, was initiated in 2014 by an attorney representing investigative journalists Dan Christensen, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Like the review requested by the president, it is still pending as the Obama administration nears its final months.
https://28pages.org/2016/04/08/60-minutes-to-report-on-28-pages-said-to-link-911-saudi-arabia/
So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....
Here is your problem. You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it......
That's called lying.
Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.
I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.
No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.
I don't have to read anymore. You are still wondering where the people and planes may have gone. Same place as the fake plane in Operation Northwoods maybe?
Northwoods was rejected as a bad plan.
Why would I defend it as a good plan?
I am not wondering where people and planes went, because I saw the planes hit the towers. I have relatives in New York that saw it with their own eyes, one of whom exited the World Trade tower 1 some fifteen minutes before it was struck.
As far as I am concerned, you can have a conspiracy theory about 911 and be sincere.
But if your conspiracy theory does not stand up to critical examination, you are a propagandist.
Take your pick, buddy.
You saw the same plane take off and saw it hit the tower? Lol go away troll. Why would you watch a random plane take off and follow it all the way to the towers when you didn't even know it was going to the towers?
Check and mate.
Eg, a propagandist.
Have a nice day.
They saw the plane hit the tower but how do they know that was the same plane that took off? Did they follow the plane the whole time? A plane they had no idea what it was going to do? How lucky is that? And I'm a propagandists? Lol
Well, let's see.
Because people from those aircraft called others on their cell phones?
Because these two planes were tracked on radar?
Because things were identified in the mess that came from people on the planes?
Yes, if you mindlessly repeat things without thinking about them, you are a propagandist. The essence of propaganda is to get it repeated over and over - by naive, gullible but well meaning people.
Have a nice day.
If you are clueless about 9/11 go post about Ethereum or something. I'm killing you!
So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....
Here is your problem. You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it......
That's called lying.
Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.
I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.
No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.
I don't have to read anymore. You are still wondering where the people and planes may have gone. Same place as the fake plane in Operation Northwoods maybe?
Northwoods was rejected as a bad plan.
Why would I defend it as a good plan?
I am not wondering where people and planes went, because I saw the planes hit the towers. I have relatives in New York that saw it with their own eyes, one of whom exited the World Trade tower 1 some fifteen minutes before it was struck.
As far as I am concerned, you can have a conspiracy theory about 911 and be sincere.
But if your conspiracy theory does not stand up to critical examination, you are a propagandist.
Take your pick, buddy.
You saw the same plane take off and saw it hit the tower? Lol go away troll. Why would you watch a random plane take off and follow it all the way to the towers when you didn't even know it was going to the towers?
Check and mate.
Eg, a propagandist.
Have a nice day.
They saw the plane hit the tower but how do they know that was the same plane that took off? Did they follow the plane the whole time? A plane they had no idea what it was going to do? How lucky is that? And I'm a propagandists? Lol
that was a simple planned terror attack of US to entry in Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
Bah. None of that is true and you know it.and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
If the US wants to go to war in the Middle East, it will do so and you know it. No need for some fanciful complex plot. No need at all.
Your kind of talk is purposeful disinformation, twisting the truth around to make aggressor be victim, and victim be aggressor. Bin Laden's stated reason for his attacks was the US presence in Saudi Arabia.
Check out the broad variety of Muslim terrorist attacks. Given the truly huge number of them worldwide it's rather laughable to try to argue that some are faked. You have so many real ones to pick from!
www.thereligionofpeace.com
So Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? Interesting the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11. Even after his death and they dropped all charges against him, none were for 9/11
A U.S. judge has dismissed all criminal charges against Osama bin Laden following the al Qaeda leader's death in a military raid in Pakistan.
U.S. District Court judge Lewis Kaplan, who had been presiding over the bin Laden case in Manhattan federal court, issued an order called 'nolle prosequi', which means 'do not prosecute' in Latin, a typical legal move once a defendant is deceased.
It closed the case after 13 years.
Bin Laden was indicted back in 1998 in the Southern District of New York for his role in the al Qaeda attack on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.
The indictment was later revised to charge bin Laden in the dual bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed 224 on August 7, 1998, and in the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000. None of the charges involved the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The court filing included an affidavit by a senior U.S. Department of Justice official describing the U.S. military raid on bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in May.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004914/U-S-officially-drop-charges-Osama-bin-Laden.html#ixzz45M5xQPjD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
that was a simple planned terror attack of US to entry in Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
Bah. None of that is true and you know it.and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
If the US wants to go to war in the Middle East, it will do so and you know it. No need for some fanciful complex plot. No need at all.
Your kind of talk is purposeful disinformation, twisting the truth around to make aggressor be victim, and victim be aggressor. Bin Laden's stated reason for his attacks was the US presence in Saudi Arabia.
Check out the broad variety of Muslim terrorist attacks. Given the truly huge number of them worldwide it's rather laughable to try to argue that some are faked. You have so many real ones to pick from!
www.thereligionofpeace.com
that was a simple planned terror attack of US to entry in Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
and now that has been proved that US has did it.
US has get entry in almost most Muslim countries on the name of terrorism.
an ruin them just for its benefit.
So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....
Here is your problem. You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it......
That's called lying.
Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.
I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.
No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.
I don't have to read anymore. You are still wondering where the people and planes may have gone. Same place as the fake plane in Operation Northwoods maybe?
Northwoods was rejected as a bad plan.
Why would I defend it as a good plan?
I am not wondering where people and planes went, because I saw the planes hit the towers. I have relatives in New York that saw it with their own eyes, one of whom exited the World Trade tower 1 some fifteen minutes before it was struck.
As far as I am concerned, you can have a conspiracy theory about 911 and be sincere.
But if your conspiracy theory does not stand up to critical examination, you are a propagandist.
Take your pick, buddy.
You saw the same plane take off and saw it hit the tower? Lol go away troll. Why would you watch a random plane take off and follow it all the way to the towers when you didn't even know it was going to the towers?
Check and mate.
Eg, a propagandist.
Have a nice day.
Jump to: