For Sinobas, Uosean and all the Debunkers.

[Idog1976]

(Please moderators do NOT merge this as it would simply bury this and I'm actually making a different point. I don't care about the thermite or what Penn and Teller think. I want to see another investiagtion. I'm trusting in your desire to have open dialogue.)

I want to consolidate some thoughts from another thread. . First off I don't know what happened on 9/11, this is EXACTLY why I want another investigation. What's more I'm not alone:

Don't you think these polls show that there is a desire, especially in NYC to open a new investigation of 9/11?

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1354

http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=855

Do these people's opinion not matter? That's what has baffled me for so long. If it's so iron-clad that it was done by guys with box cutters why not have a new investigation to put this baby to bed? I mean you guys seem so certain that there is nothing more too it and it's easy explained away by science (mind you truthers feel the same way about their claims!). Why are there so many doubters in the VERY PLACE IT HAPPENED? Don't they deserve another investiagation? If the government's conspiracy theory (dudes with box cutters) is unsatisfying to half of Americans and two thirds of NYC residents per Zogby then don't they and the 9/11 families who want another investigation deserve one?

Ok so people like to say 9/11 couldn't be an inside job because:

A) The government wouldn't even consider killing US Citizens to start a war.

This is false

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

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

B) Big conspiracies aren't tenable because the conspirators would squeal.

false and here's why. In addition to the examples of the Nazi's keeping death camps under wraps for the German people there is also the organized crime angle:

The second point that has been frustrating me is the idea that a large conspiracy cannot and does not exist. This is categorically false. Al Capone ran a criminal empire that extended internationally to Canada. Everyone litterally everyone in Chicago knew that he was ordering hits on his enemies and was running protection rackets etc. and yet the Federal Government spending vast amounts of money and lives was completely unable to prove that this man was ordering these kinds of criminal activities. The crimes would happen everyone would know the mafia was involved and in many cases, because the mafia had done a good job of covering their trail, they were never able to pin specific crimes on anyone. They certainly were never able to pin the numerous crimes Al Capone had ordered on him. Thus we have a guy that was in NO WAY given the benefit of the doubt by the public, Al Capone, whose criminal activities were obvious to EVERYONE and yet there was never enough proof to prosecute him for these crimes.

So much for the large conspiracies can't exist theory. They can and DO exist and the Mafia isn't the only example, the Triad and the Yakuza in the far East along with the Russian Mafia and many other large criminal conspiracies - that's a legal term by the way conspiracy to commit fraud, murder etc. so conspiracies DO exist in case you didn't know that - happen all the time and are in fact banal and a day to day occurrence. Many many crimes are never solved many of them involve large criminal conspiracies in fact the large criminal conspiracies tend to have a much higher likelihood of getting away with their crimes then individuals who say kill their wife or try to commit fraud. Sorry everyone, turns out smart humans can do nasty evil things even in broad daylight and get away with them. If criminal organizations who get ZERO benefit of the doubt from the public can get away with crimes then why can't say the Nazi party or the Communist Party in China or Vladimir Putin get away with huge large scale crimes when they do get the benefit of the doubt from the public, have a compliant media, and of course have control over the investigative branches of the government? You see what I'm saying here?

I would LOVE to hear a rebuttal of these points. Sadly, I think most people don't want to live in a world where a conspiracy inovling THEIR government can exist. People in Russia for that reason believe Putin, people in China believe Hu Jintao and of course many people in America are too frightened to consider that OUR elites might operate like THEIR elites. Unfortunately, until very recently like as in post World War II recently, there has been zero evidence that political and economic elites operate differently then they have for thousands of years. Since WWII the media barons, historians and propagandists have succeeded in creating the illusion within a country's borders that it is only elites of other nations who behave in such a manner.

C) if 9/11 was an inside job then they would have also hidden WMD's because why wouldn't they?

No, here's why:

The number one reason why - assuming for a minute that 9/11 was an inside job - the conspirators wouldn't have conspired to plant WMD's is....(drum roll)...they didn't need to. What's that you say? "They absolutely would have had to plant WMD's if it was 9/11 was an inside job" Oh yeah and why is that? We did NOT find WMD's and....oh that's right we are still in Iraq 6 years later under a democratic administration. What's more, even without finding WMD's, supposed liberals like Thomas Friedman are now lauding Bush's choice to invade Iraq. Ok so explain to me again why they so desperately needed to plant the WMD's? They clearly did not, they just changed the reasons why they needed to invade and more importantly why they needed to stay. With arguments like leaving would create a power vacuum in the Middle East, Israel wouldnt' be safe etc. Reasons I might add, that are apparently compelling enough that people accept the continued occupation of Iraq 6 years later. So clearly there is no necessary reason why WMD's MUST be planted if 9/11 was an inside job. I would argue it was an unnecessary risk to double down on your conspiracies and run the risk of being caught in the second (WMD's) especially with an non-compliant international media including Al-Jazeera, leading to closer examination by the folks in this thread for instance of conspiracy one (9/11). Supposedly for folks in this thread believe the lack of conspiracy in planting WMD's is De Facto proof that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. This is a spurious claim in my mind and is frankly illogical.

D) Didn't Bush prosecute the war to get Osama to get justice for 9/11 and kill Saddam to save us from WMD's?

No he didn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ghanistan.iraq

Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned down by the president and vice-president".

By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil. Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad".

Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one. This is the opposite to what we were told by George Bush and Tony Blair. On March 6, 13 days before the war began, Bush said to journalists: "I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice."

The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

If Bush was so big on security and Cheney cared so much about fighting the threat of terrorism why not complete a deal for Osama that the Clinton regime had set up? I mean really why WOULD you let the man who blew up the USS Cole slip out of your grip?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

On the morning of October 12, 2000, Mohabbat was in Washington DC, preparing for an 11am meeting at the State Department , when he got a call from State, telling him to turn on the tv and then come right over. The USS Cole had just been bombed. Mohabbat had a session with the head of State's South East Asia desk and with officials from the NSC. They told him the US was going to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan". "Give me three weeks," Mohabbat answered, "and I will deliver Osama to your doorstep." They gave him a month.

Mohabbat went to Kandahar and communicated the news of imminent bombing to the Taliban. They asked him to set up a meeting with US officials to arrange the circumstances of their handover of Osama. On November 2, 2000, less than a week before the US election, Mohabbat arranged a face-to-face meeting, in that same Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt, between Taliban leaders and a US government team.

After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

Up to that time Osama had been living on the outskirts of Kandahar. At some time shortly after the Frankfurt meeting, the Taliban moved Osama and placed him and his retinue under house arrest at Daronta, thirty miles from Kabul.

In the wake of the 2000 election Mohabbat traveled to Islamabad and met with William Milam, US ambassador to Pakistan and the person designated by the Clinton administration to deal with the Taliban on the fate of bin Laden. Milam told Mohabbat that it was a done deal but that the actual handover of bin Laden would have to be handled by the incoming Bush administration.

emphasis mine on that final quote.

Why did Richard Clarke say Rumsfeld was immediately wanting to tie 9/11 to Saddam? Richard Clarke mind you had served for MULTIPLE Republican regimes. He wanted to follow in Clinton's footsteps and nail Osama and yet Bush/Cheney got rid of investigations into Osama and the Bin Laden family at large.

Clinton was no saint either. But heres what is said about the Bush Admin's attitude towards investigating the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family sans Osama (I recommend reading this whole article):

http://www.nthposition.com/didthepresidentspike.php

The "back-off" directive and the Islamic bomb
Despite these tantalizing facts, Abdullah and his operations were A-OK with the FBI chiefs, if not their working agents. Just a dumb SNAFU? Not according to a top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity. After Bush took office, he said, "there was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off" from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off-limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations - at least before 9/11 - began to die.

Here is his lead in which answers your questions about why people in the media and one would assume in the investigative community were afraid to look into matters more closely:

On the BBC television show, 'Newsnight', an American journalist confessed that since the 9/11 attacks, US reporters are simply too afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions that could kill careers: "It's an obscene comparison, but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," Dan Rather said. Without his makeup, Rather looked drawn, old and defeated in confessing that he too had given in. "It's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often."

This is why I say I want another investigation. 9/11 truthers and Debunkers shouldnt' be the ones who have the burden here if over half of American's want another investigation along with 2/3rds of NYC residents the government owes it to the people to open a new investigation. Explain to me please why there shouldn't be another investigation of 9/11 when over half of America wants it and two thirds of NYC residents want it. If you say because it would cost money then I say to you that isn't a good enough reason. We are spending GAZILLIONS right now and a few million wouldn't make any difference but might give 9/11 families and truthers some peace of mind.

 

[barfo]

Do these people's opinion not matter?

Not to me.

That's what has baffled me for so long. If it's so iron-clad that it was done by guys with box cutters why not have a new investigation to put this baby to bed?

What makes you think a new investigation would change anything?

I mean you guys seem so certain that there is nothing more too it and it's easy explained away by science (mind you truthers feel the same way about their claims!).

And there are probably a few guys at the state hospital who think they are Jesus. I guess we need to investigate their claims, after all, they believe in them.

Explain to me please why there shouldn't be another investigation of 9/11 when over half of America wants it and two thirds of NYC residents want it.

Because it would be a stupid waste of time and money. Since some huge percentage of Americans believe in God, do we need to investigate that too? UFOs? Astrology?

If you say because it would cost money then I say to you that isn't a good enough reason. We are spending GAZILLIONS right now and a few million wouldn't make any difference but might give 9/11 families and truthers some peace of mind.

The money is a good enough reason, and truthers will never have peace of mind. There will always be another conspiracy theory to believe in.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

Not to me.

Ok, so you don't care about the opinion of 51% of Americans? Do you believe in Democracy? I mean that "opinion" crafts ALL of our policy foreign and domestic.

And there are probably a few guys at the state hospital who think they are Jesus. I guess we need to investigate their claims, after all, they believe in them.

Because it would be a stupid waste of time and money. Since some huge percentage of Americans believe in God, do we need to investigate that too? UFOs? Astrology?

UFO's, Astrology and God as far as I know have nothing to do with the biggest historical event in the past 30 years of American history and the ensuing dramatic policy changes both foreign (Iraq and Afghanistan Trillions and counting) and domestic (Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, Homeland Security etc.) so I think it is a tad disingenuous to compare those things. One is an event we can all agree happened (9/11) and that greatly effected our lives. The others are people's beliefs which may or may not have merit, but hopefully aren't effecting our foreign and domestic policy (arguably astrology did with Ronald Reagan). Therefore the comparison strikes me as strange at best or disingenuous.

What makes you think a new investigation would change anything?

Because the people who are reasonable and lend the 9/11 truth movement credibility have said they just want a new thorough investigation. Obviously some folks won't believe anything but I don't think that is the group that really warrants the new investigation. Clearly it's the families of the victims and the residents of NYC and other concerned and rational citizens, apparently a majority, of the US that want a deep investigation of the events that "Changed the world forever." For something that big it seems there should be further investigations doesn't it?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Although I think it is totally uncecessary as well as a huge waste of money, I am not completely opposed to some sort of investigation (yet again), but there is nothing new or compelling that hasn't been examined and re-examined unto death.

That begs the question, do we re-investigate 5200 times until we finally get someone to say this is partially an inside job? I think not.

Now, if something really new and verified evidence sheds new light on the situation, then maybe, but this is the same old stuff.

 

[Idog1976]

Although I think it is totally uncecessary as well as a huge waste of money, I am not completely opposed to some sort of investigation (yet again), but there is nothing new or compelling that hasn't been examined and re-examined unto death.

That begs the question, do we re-investigate 5200 times until we finally get someone to say this is partially an inside job? I think not.

Now, if something really new and verified evidence sheds new light on the situation, then maybe, but this is the same old stuff.

First of all stuff has been debated off to the side in duels between truthers and debunkers. Never in a court of law, never with people like Robert Mueller, Cheney, Bush and Tennet under oath. Also there were not scientists also under oath explaining WTC7 and other anomalies. The breaches of security both on the airlines and of our Intel and Millitary apparatus were not adequately explained, examined or punished. I think that no one was punished is pretty key in all of this. Many people died if that thing happens in other countries people are fired. In our country people were awarded the medal of freedom and greater offices.

I would settle with enough evidence to link Osama bin Laden to the case:

Why doesn't the FBI want Osama Bin Laden in connection with 9/11?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

surely with all the HARD EVIDENCE the government has they would include that wouldn't they?

I mean I thought that was why we invaded Afghanistan? Wasn't it? 9/11? Harboring Osama bin Laden the mastermind? Guess not!

I DARE ANYONE to rebut that!

 

[barfo]

Ok, so you don't care about the opinion of 51% of Americans? Do you believe in Democracy? I mean that "opinion" crafts ALL of our policy foreign and domestic.

People believe in all sorts of silly stuff. I am not in favor of pandering to people's irrational beliefs.

UFO's, Astrology and God as far as I know have nothing to do with the biggest historical event in the past 30 years of American history and the ensuing dramatic policy changes both foreign (Iraq and Afghanistan Trillions and counting) and domestic (Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, Homeland Security etc.) so I think it is a tad disingenuous to compare those things.

None of the things the 911 "truthers" say have anything to do with that either.

Because the people who are reasonable and lend the 9/11 truth movement credibility have said they just want a new thorough investigation.

Wait, what? Who are these people and why haven't they been brought up in one of these threads before?

Obviously some folks won't believe anything but I don't think that is the group that really warrants the new investigation. Clearly it's the families of the victims and the residents of NYC and other concerned and rational citizens, apparently a majority, of the US that want a deep investigation of the events that "Changed the world forever." For something that big it seems there should be further investigations doesn't it?

A new investigation won't change anyone's mind. There would just be the same silly charges about how the investigation was biased, left out this or that piece of "evidence", etc. A new investigation is just a way to prolong the life of the 911 cult.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

Ok please explain why the FBI doesn't have 9/11 listed as a crime they want Bin Laden for. I mean it's crazy to think he didn't do it so surely the FBI wants him for that crime right? I mean there is enough evidence to link him to it right?

P.S.

I have no idea what you are saying here:

Quote:
UFO's, Astrology and God as far as I know have nothing to do with the biggest historical event in the past 30 years of American history and the ensuing dramatic policy changes both foreign (Iraq and Afghanistan Trillions and counting) and domestic (Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, Homeland Security etc.) so I think it is a tad disingenuous to compare those things.
None of the things the 911 "truthers" say have anything to do with that either.

If you mean 9/11 truthers are saying things that have nothing to do with foreign policy then uh, well you obviously haven't bothered to even think about it. 9/11 was the pretext for wars and vast policy changes and the spending of trillions of dollars. It's kind of an important event.

 

[barfo]

Ok please explain why the FBI doesn't have 9/11 listed as a crime they want Bin Laden for. I mean it's crazy to think he didn't do it so surely the FBI wants him for that crime right? I mean there is enough evidence to link him to it right?

I certainly don't know, I'm not up on how the FBI prints up wanted posters. Maybe funding for the wanted-poster branch got cut back in the 90's, so there is no one to update the poster. It makes no difference in any case. They are free to charge him with the crime if they catch him, whether or not it lists it on the wanted poster.

I have no idea what you are saying here:

If you mean 9/11 truthers are saying things that have nothing to do with foreign policy

No, I was saying 9/11 truthers are saying things that have nothing to do with the actual events of 9/11.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

I certainly don't know, I'm not up on how the FBI prints up wanted posters. Maybe funding for the wanted-poster branch got cut back in the 90's, so there is no one to update the poster. It makes no difference in any case. They are free to charge him with the crime if they catch him, whether or not it lists it on the wanted poster.



No, I was saying 9/11 truthers are saying things that have nothing to do with the actual events of 9/11.

barfo

Fair enough. I've said my piece and then some. People who don't want another investigation clearly feel they know what happened. I'm quite certain I don't.

Thanks for listening and giving your opinion.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

[SIZE=+1]MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH[/SIZE] [SIZE=+3]

USAMA BIN LADEN
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Date of Photograph Unknown[/SIZE]

Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, the Prince, the Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, the Director
[SIZE=+1]
DESCRIPTION[/SIZE]
Date of Birth: 1957
Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia
Eyes: Brown
Height: 6' 4" to 6' 6"
Complexion: Olive
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds
Sex: Male
Build: Thin
Nationality: Saudi Arabian
Occupation: Unknown

Remarks: Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, "The Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane.

Scars and Marks: None

[SIZE=+1]CAUTION[/SIZE]

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST U.S. EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.

[SIZE=+1]REWARD[/SIZE]

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

[SIZE=-1]June 1999
Poster Revised November 2001[/SIZE]

 

[BlazerWookee]

Because the people who are reasonable and lend the 9/11 truth movement credibility

Not much Venn Diagram overlap in those two groups...

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings.

(my note: )

From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

Others on the list include Colombian drug cartel leader Diego Leon Montoya Sanchez and fugitive Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger, charged with a role in "numerous murders" in the 1970s and 1980s.

The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

Staff writer Sari Horwitz contributed to this report.

 

[Ed O]

If you want to bury your head in the sand then its you choice. I'm just asking people to not just listen and trust your news and TV shows because they are all part of it.

And if you want to think that Martians went back in time to kill JFK because of a game of truth or dare with Skull and Bones members, feel free.

But who watches TV for their news nowadays? Not me, that's for sure.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Did anybody say anything about martians? I mean honestly you have no arguement so you have to talk about martians?

In your world of reasonable disagreement, it's OK to say that others who disagree with you are "sticking their head in the sand", but that others may not lump you with the same crowd who thinks that the moon landing was staged or that mountains on Mars are a person's face?

Really. You insult those that disagree with you, then you expect to be treated reasonably?

It's ridiculous.

Ed O.

 

[Idog1976]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings.

(my note: )

From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

Others on the list include Colombian drug cartel leader Diego Leon Montoya Sanchez and fugitive Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger, charged with a role in "numerous murders" in the 1970s and 1980s.

The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

Staff writer Sari Horwitz contributed to this report.

So it took the FBI three years or less to indict Bin Laden for the relatively unimportant USS Cole bombings and yet here we are going on 7+ years after the biggest terrorist attack in history and there is not enough hard evidence to indict Bin Laden?

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=rex_tomb_1

FBI spokesman Rex Tomb says that it will take time for criminal proceedings to commence against the people thought to be responsible for 9/11: “There’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged.” He continues, “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.” In mid-August 2007 Zacarias Moussaoui will be the only person charged in connection with 9/11 in the US, being sentenced to life in prison in spring 2006 (see May 3, 2006), but it is unclear if he was involved in the 9/11 plot or a planned follow up plot (see January 30, 2003). Osama bin Laden will not be charged in connection with his alleged participation (see June 6, 2006 and August 28, 2006). [Wired News, 9/27/2001]


When asked why Osama bin Laden’s wanted poster only mentions his alleged involvement in the East African embassy bombings, but not 9/11, Rex Tomb of the FBI’s public affairs unit says, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” [Milli Gazette, 6/11/2006] The Washington Post will later pick up this story and say that bin Laden’s alleged involvement in the 9/11 operation is not mentioned on the poster because he has not been indicted for it (see August 28, 2006).

Again I have a theory that wouldn't require US government collusion (see the WTC thermite thread) but perhaps a mistaken rush to judgment (Bin Laden had this pinned on him within hours). I have long wondered if Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks as the hijackers were all Saudi and the level of sophistication required to so soundly defeat our military and intelligence networks. I don't buy the keystone cops argument as we would all be speaking Russian if our defense were that porous. Some folks have suggested Hamas or even Pakistani intelligence (wanting to at that time get rid of Bin Laden and the Taliban) and there are reports of $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks.

This would not be the first time an ostensible ally carried out a terrorist attack on US soil. The Israeli government even blew up a car bomb in D.C.

As far as Al Qaeda taking credit the infamous Bin Laden video has been discredited the supposed confession video is E:

The 'Bin' from the 911 'confession' video is 'E'

So supposedly we have a videotaped confession. And yet that isn't considered hard evidence or enough to indict him? Yet we were able to attack a soverign nation? All I'm saying is perhaps some other government is playing us for fools and using us to meet their policy goals. At the top of my list for a variety of reasons is the Saudi whose funding of terrorists is well known and documented just ask the Israelis.

 

[maxiep]

So it took the FBI three years or less to indict Bin Laden for the relatively unimportant USS Cole bombings and yet here we are going on 7+ years after the biggest terrorist attack in history and there is not enough hard evidence to indict Bin Laden?

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=rex_tomb_1






Again I have a theory that wouldn't require US government collusion (see the WTC thermite thread) but perhaps a mistaken rush to judgment (Bin Laden had this pinned on him within hours). I have long wondered if Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks as the hijackers were all Saudi and the level of sophistication required to so soundly defeat our military and intelligence networks. I don't buy the keystone cops argument as we would all be speaking Russian if our defense were that porous. Some folks have suggested Hamas or even Pakistani intelligence (wanting to at that time get rid of Bin Laden and the Taliban) and there are reports of $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks.

This would not be the first time an ostensible ally carried out a terrorist attack on US soil. The Israeli government even blew up a car bomb in D.C.

As far as Al Qaeda taking credit the infamous Bin Laden video has been discredited the supposed confession video is E:

The 'Bin' from the 911 'confession' video is 'E'

So supposedly we have a videotaped confession. And yet that isn't considered hard evidence or enough to indict him? Yet we were able to attack a soverign nation? All I'm saying is perhaps some other government is playing us for fools and using us to meet their policy goals. At the top of my list for a variety of reasons is the Saudi whose funding of terrorists is well known and documented just ask the Israelis.

Photo "E" doesn't look like Bin Laden at all. As an aside, doesn't Osama look like an Arab version of Scottie Pippen?

 

[Denny Crane]

The traditional way the govt. indicts people accused of multiple crimes is to indict on a few in case the guy gets off on a technicality. Double Jeopardy, you know. If he does get off, then they indict on the other charges. Seen it many times with serial murderers.

The did up the bounty on Bin Laden from $5M to $25M, and he's still most wanted.

No conspiracy here. Nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Idog1976]

The traditional way the govt. indicts people accused of multiple crimes is to indict on a few in case the guy gets off on a technicality. Double Jeopardy, you know. If he does get off, then they indict on the other charges. Seen it many times with serial murderers.

The did up the bounty on Bin Laden from $5M to $25M, and he's still most wanted.

No conspiracy here. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree. I say I don't know what happened and would like an official under oath investigation both of the event itself and also of the handling of the intelligence and defense of the USA that failed so badly that day. You apparently do not. Just a side question are you cool with Warrantless wiretapping? The Patriot Act and the removal of Haebeus Corpus for those deemed terrorists? I hear Obama admin is using the term terrorist and applying it to a right wing spectrum now days...

 

[Denny Crane]

Well we shall have to agree to disagree. I say I don't know what happened and would like an official under oath investigation both of the event itself and also of the handling of the intelligence and defense of the USA that failed so badly that day. You apparently do not. Just a side question are you cool with Warrantless wiretapping? The Patriot Act and the removal of Haebeus Corpus for those deemed terrorists? I hear Obama admin is using the term terrorist and applying it to a right wing spectrum now days...

If they're data mining, then I don't have a problem with what you think is Warrantless wiretapping. The difference being they know the number of someone of interest and they look at who calls it.

Guys arrested on the battlefield by the military aren't entitled to criminal courts or protections. They're POWs of a sort.

 

[Idog1976]

If they're data mining, then I don't have a problem with what you think is Warrantless wiretapping. The difference being they know the number of someone of interest and they look at who calls it.

Guys arrested on the battlefield by the military aren't entitled to criminal courts or protections. They're POWs of a sort.

Fair enough I tend to agree with both of those points. Especially the latter. Data Mining worries me in that if ever we do get an administration that is intent upon truly crushing dissent that information could have devastating consequences for liberty.

One more question: Do you believe in Global Warming (Climate Change whatever the term is now)?

 

[Denny Crane]

Fair enough I tend to agree with both of those points. Especially the latter. Data Mining worries me in that if ever we do get an administration that is intent upon truly crushing dissent that information could have devastating consequences for liberty.

One more question: Do you believe in Global Warming (Climate Change whatever the term is now)?

Yes, but not man made.

 

[Idog1976]

Yes, but not man made.

So you think all those scientists who state global warming is caused by man are intentionally lying? I'm asking not saying. Why do you think there is such broad consensus about it amongst the scientific community? I know there are a handful of scientists who think that Global Warming is caused by other effects such as increasd solar activity.

As a side question do you think that we can go on fishing and logging at current rates for the next 50 years?

 

[Denny Crane]

So you think all those scientists who state global warming is caused by man are intentionally lying? I'm asking not saying. Why do you think there is such broad consensus about it amongst the scientific community? I know there are a handful of scientists who think that Global Warming is caused by other effects such as increasd solar activity.

As a side question do you think that we can go on fishing and logging at current rates for the next 50 years?

I think the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right, it's absurd that they can get the weather right next year.

Consensus is a political thing, not a scientific one. They don't vote that e=mc^2 is true.

I think the earth getting warmer is due to albedo. The ice caps and glaciers have been receding since the end of the ice age (when they covered the great lakes and then some). The more "white" the world is, the more of the sun's radiation is reflected back into space.

You can take a white piece of paper and a black one and leave them sit in the sun. A thermometer held a foot above both will have a higher temperature above the black one.

It sure seems like it would have a cascading effect, too. Less white = more heat = more melting = less white, repeat.

It's also not been warmer for the past 10 years. Year after year it's getting colder. This past winter was the coldest in a long time (decade plus), and even this spring and early summer, there's been records set for lowest temperature ever in lots of places (in the USA).

Some scientists are clearly outright lying. They know where the govt. funding goes. The rest are lemmings, believing what the others write in their textbooks.

 

[Idog1976]

I think the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right, it's absurd that they can get the weather right next year.

Consensus is a political thing, not a scientific one. They don't vote that e=mc^2 is true.

I think the earth getting warmer is due to albedo. The ice caps and glaciers have been receding since the end of the ice age (when they covered the great lakes and then some). The more "white" the world is, the more of the sun's radiation is reflected back into space.

You can take a white piece of paper and a black one and leave them sit in the sun. A thermometer held a foot above both will have a higher temperature above the black one.

It sure seems like it would have a cascading effect, too. Less white = more heat = more melting = less white, repeat.

It's also not been warmer for the past 10 years. Year after year it's getting colder. This past winter was the coldest in a long time (decade plus), and even this spring and early summer, there's been records set for lowest temperature ever in lots of places (in the USA).

Some scientists are clearly outright lying. They know where the govt. funding goes. The rest are lemmings, believing what the others write in their textbooks.

What about the fishing and logging at current rates? Think we're good for another 50 or 100 at current rates?

Interesting point of view about the warming/climate change and the powerful effect government funding can have even on scientists. Thanks for answering that question and being honest.

I don't plan on being snarky in response I just wanted to hear what you thought about these things. By the way I hope I haven't offended you in these threads I know it has gotten heated at times.

P.S. I forgot to ask what agenda do you think is being pushed here in order that Scientists in such large numbers would state that global climate change is man made? Or rather what agenda are the politicians that state global warming is man made pursuing in your estimation?

 

[barfo]

I think the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right, it's absurd that they can get the weather right next year.

Consensus is a political thing, not a scientific one. They don't vote that e=mc^2 is true.

Some scientists are clearly outright lying. They know where the govt. funding goes. The rest are lemmings, believing what the others write in their textbooks.

Seems like that same sort of thinking would lead one to believe in the 9/11 conspiracies too.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What about the fishing and logging at current rates? Think we're good for another 50 or 100 at current rates?

Interesting point of view about the warming/climate change and the powerful effect government funding can have even on scientists. Thanks for answering that question and being honest.

I don't plan on being snarky in response I just wanted to hear what you thought about these things. By the way I hope I haven't offended you in these threads I know it has gotten heated at times.

I think we're good for another 300 years on fossil fuel without even trying to reduce our consumption. I do think conservation is a good thing, though. I am a big proponent of nuclear power - it's cheap enough, it's clean enough, and it's plentiful and efficient. Things like solar panels and windmills aren't. Basically, I want all the power I need to run my computer and TV and so on, but I don't want to have to go run on a treadmill to create it.

Everything I've read about foresting says the loggers are planting more trees than they cut down and are doing a crop rotation kind of thing to assure they're not just clear cutting away everything.

Fishing is a different matter, although we have plenty of farm raised fish. Technology has gotten so good the fish don't stand a chance and we're clearly able to exterminate them all like we did the buffalo.

As for the "getting heated" bit, read our forum rules (see link at top of the page). It's our policy to be understanding when discussion gets heated, it's natural. We're not about kicking people off for saying something in the heat of a good argument. It's a far cry from just being an asshole and ruining everyone's fun all the time...

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems like that same sort of thinking would lead one to believe in the 9/11 conspiracies too.

barfo

How's that?

Our experts at engineering and demolition build buildings that last a long time and blow them up perfectly so they don't damage the buildings next door.

The weatherman told me it was going to rain today, yet it was sunny and warm.

 

[barfo]

How's that?

Our experts at engineering and demolition build buildings that last a long time and blow them up perfectly so they don't damage the buildings next door.

The weatherman told me it was going to rain today, yet it was sunny and warm.

You know perfectly well that weathermen and climate scientists are not the same thing.

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

I think we're good for another 300 years on fossil fuel without even trying to reduce our consumption. I do think conservation is a good thing, though. I am a big proponent of nuclear power - it's cheap enough, it's clean enough, and it's plentiful and efficient. Things like solar panels and windmills aren't. Basically, I want all the power I need to run my computer and TV and so on, but I don't want to have to go run on a treadmill to create it.

Everything I've read about foresting says the loggers are planting more trees than they cut down and are doing a crop rotation kind of thing to assure they're not just clear cutting away everything.

Fishing is a different matter, although we have plenty of farm raised fish. Technology has gotten so good the fish don't stand a chance and we're clearly able to exterminate them all like we did the buffalo.

As for the "getting heated" bit, read our forum rules (see link at top of the page). It's our policy to be understanding when discussion gets heated, it's natural. We're not about kicking people off for saying something in the heat of a good argument. It's a far cry from just being an asshole and ruining everyone's fun all the time...

to you as well. I thought the Mod staff did an excellent job in these threads.

I'm not sure if you saw my last question, I added it after the fact. What do you think is the motivation of politicians who want Global Warming / Climate Change to be considered a man caused event?

 

[Denny Crane]

to you as well. I thought the Mod staff did an excellent job in these threads.

I'm not sure if you saw my last question, I added it after the fact. What do you think is the motivation of politicians who want Global Warming / Climate Change to be considered a man caused event?

Anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, to diminish our influence.