Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

Assertions - evidence + $ 1 will get you a cup of coffee in New York!

... but not, apparently, a day off in Rio during Carnival

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Right you are Ron ... I believe this bogus CIA tape was left convienantly laying around a house in Afganistan , so the US military could scoop it up and then show it to us gullible Americans .

If Bin Laden had really taken out the World Trade Center , and had his operatives take out part of the Pentagon too , bringing America to it's knees that day , he would be the first one to admit it ...Yet he has never taken the credit for this amazing 'terrorist' attack ... And on top of that , Bush is no longer gunning for him , " dead or alive " .... I wonder why that would be ?

It is, of course, perfectly possible for Bin Laden to have know nothing about the attacks beforehand, And still have the same group, linked to him, carry them out. terrorist groups often work in tightly controlled cells, financed by the main group, but working autonimously towards a shared goal. If ths tape is faked it is to allow feelings of hatred, and revenge to be projected onto a visible "hate figure"A role Bin Laden serves wonderfully. But by the same logic, even if the tape is rouge, it does not automatically follow that Bin Laden is innocent, just that this administration is capable of deception to pursue its goals.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I should add, that that does not mean that I buy all the official line on 911, I still believe that the Administration is lying through its teeth, when it says that they were taken completely by surprise.

[Len Colby]

Top Bin Laden Expert: Confession Fake

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

by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

2/17/06

Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11?

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

Is the famous “confession video” genuine? Despite Bush's insistence that the tape is authentic, America's top academic Bin Laden expert has finally gone on the record, joining numerous other experts.

“It's bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's Religious Studies program.

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

1) Who besides Alex Jones and Barrett think Lawrence is “America's top academic Bin Laden expert”?

- He isn’t the “author of Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden,” but rather the book’s editor, he wasn’t the person who translated OBL’s ‘wit and wisdom’ into English so we can’t be sure of his command or Arabic.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18750

- He has edited, authored or coauthored about 16 books mostly about Islam, “Messages to the World” was the only one concerning OBL only one other, “Defenders of God”, is seems deals with fundamentalist Islam but doesn’t seem to focus on ‘Jihadists’ and also examines fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism.

http://tinyurl.com/2apka5

- There is no indication in his extensive CV of any interest in OBL beyond having edited the book.

http://www.duke.edu/web/muslimnets/mcw_bio/bruce/cv2005.rtf

2) Nor are we ever told why he thinks “It's bogus”.

So all it boils down to an expert on Islam with no apparent expertise in OBL, Jihadists o fundamentalist Islam who edited a book of OBL’s speeches thinks the tape was a fake but we aren’t told why. Is this really compelling enough to start a new thred, esp since the tape has been discussed elsewhere on this forum? I think not.

Al Jazera’s London bureau chief and the editor-publisher of an academic journal about Arab and Islamic media both agreed the tape is authentic

My intuition as a journalist told me when I watched the tape on CNN that it was authentic and that it was Bin Ladin

<snip>

Until I got to meet Ramzi and Khalid there was a lot of doubt as to the possibility that that tape might have been fabricated. But I got it on videotape from one of the other people from Al-Qa'ida who were there at the apartment that the tape was legitimate. I asked him whether that tape was genuine and he said it was. And in the end when I went back I put that Saudi Sheikh's video tape with Bin Ladin on and listened to it for four or five times, and certain bits and pieces that Bin Ladin said on that tape fit in very nicely with what Ramzi and Khalid had said to me. You know like the first time that they knew of the zero hour.

SAS: I understand what you are saying and I've been convinced of that tape's authenticity since the beginning. And your experience just confirms it.

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html

As for the images both sides will see what they want to see. Other stills from the same tape look very much like OBL to me.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Do mass murderers or any murderers typically have themselves videotaped talking and chortling about their heinous crimes, after denying they did them?

OBL isn't your typical mass murderer and he had good reason to have denied carrying out the attack a confession would have left the Taliban without an excuse not to extradite him

And if they were going to do so for propaganda purposes, don't you think they would arrange to have a competent taping with decent lighting, understandable sound, little things like that?

There is speculation the tape was the product of a sting operation see the TBS link from my previous post and the 911myths link from Matthew's

Also two people who bear strong resemblances to two know OBL associates appear in the tape

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

[Duane Daman]

Len ... Why do you always believe the government's story of every controversy out there ?

Don't you think it's possible that your sources might be wrong sometimes ? ... It seems to me like you just go along with the forced fed official version on everything from who really murdered JFK, to Apollo really landing on the moon , to who really attacked America on 9/11 .

And before you come back and ask me why I believe every "conspiracy theory" out there , I don't ... only the one's that obviously are conspiracies and cover-ups .... Like the above mentioned .

[Len Colby]

Actually I've made it clear I doubt the LNT regarding the JFK assassination though I don't believe the Z film was faked and that I beleve there was more to the October Surprise (or actually the lake their of) that we've been told nor do I believe James Earl Ray alone killed MLK jr. What CT don't YOu believe?

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates the "official" versions of 9/11 and the moon landings are (a least for the most part) what happened.

What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

[Duane Daman]

It just seems that you enjoy disagreeing with whatever the post topic is , no matter what it is about .

If you look at the photo links Mathew posted here it is obvious that it's a Bin Laden look alike in the CIA video ... The nose it too short , the hairline is too low and the ears are too small and low on his head .... Plus he is too heavy and his skin is darker .

I was watching the Fox Noise Network several months ago , when our current inept administration was pretending to be hunting for the real Bin Laden again , and they were showing a slide show of Bin Laden pictures , one right after the other .... Then right in the middle of the side show of probably about twenty different pictures , this CIA still picture was planted , and it stuck out like a sore thumb .... Taken out of context all alone , one might be easily fooled into believing this is a picture of Bin Laden ... But in the context of seeing about twenty other pictures of the real Bin Laden , it was very evident that this guy is an imposter .

Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Anthony Thorne]

I'm mildly surprised to note that, based on Len's post just above, I agree with most everything he says about those other various conspiracy theories (though I haven't seen how dismissive he is of JFK conspiracy theories in general) - I just disagree with him on 9/11. I haven't yet dived back in to the Loose Change thread where I left several questions of his dangling... Just as a quick comment, author Abid Ullah Jan (who interviewed Bin Laden prior to 9/11) said that Bin Laden mentioned to him in August 2001 or thereabouts that "..something was coming..", but couldn't or wouldn't elaborate beyond that. Ullah Jan has mentioned in a recent book that he felt Atta was the back-and-forth guy between the ISI and Bin Laden, that Atta ringleadered the various hijackers/patsies (take your pick depending on which side you fall regarding this), and that Bin Laden didn't have much more 'advance knowledge' than we did. This is possible if you take the Webster Tarpley/Sander Hicks/etc view of OBL as a convenient dupe and patsy, less so if you take the view that OBL craftily engineered the whole thing via his laptop in a cave in Afghanistan. Even if you buy the official story completely, Ullah Jan does have some interesting observations about the issue in his books.

[Brian Smith]

This is a little video I came up with using Screen Blaster Movie Maker. It is a montage of shots relating to 911 with an excerpt of Mahler's 1st symphony as background music. Just a pretty simple cut and paste job, but the images and subject go nicely with the music: urgent and alarming at first, then giving way to sadness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsKOz_bh5qY

ps

As the video shows, I am one of the so-called "pod people".

[Sid Walker]

Anyone else on the forum seen the following story?

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

Over 100 comments (and counting) are viewable at the base of the article - also well worth a look.IMO.

The article begins:

If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Here's another para...

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

9-11 (official) conspiracy theory apologists please step forward and 'explain' how such miracles could occur?

Edited February 28, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Kevin M. West]

Anyone else on the forum seen the following story?

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

Over 100 comments (and counting) are viewable at the base of the article - also well worth a look.IMO.

The article begins:

If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Here's another para...

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

Official story apologists please step forward and tell those of us who are confused how all these miracles could come to pass?

One simple explanation is that they were being told all day that it was most likely going to collapse, so they prepared a script so they were ready to go the minute it happened. Then they got bad info from someone that it had collapsed already, and the rest is history. Wouldn't be the first time that the news reported something before it was official.

[Kevin M. West]

Oh, hrm, just noticed...

21:54 GMT would be 4:54 EST... but September is during daylight savings time, making that news report 5:54 EDT, 34 minutes after the collapse.

[Sid Walker]

Anyone else on the forum seen the following story?

Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance

Over 100 comments (and counting) are viewable at the base of the article - also well worth a look.IMO.

The article begins:

If there was any remaining doubt that the BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 over 20 minutes before it fell then it has now evaporated with the discovery of footage from the BBC's News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.

Here's another para...

Following the controversy created by Monday's footage in which BBC correspondent Jane Standley is seen live in New York reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it remains standing behind her, many debunkers tried to claim that the images were inconclusive because there was no time stamp on the footage. Others alleged that Standley was merely standing in front of a dated blue screen image and that the shot in her background was a recording from earlier in the day. Both these objections can now be easily dismissed by the addition of the News 24 footage confirming that the news that Building 7 had collapsed was prematurely reported by 26 minutes.

Official story apologists please step forward and tell those of us who are confused how all these miracles could come to pass?

One simple explanation is that they were being told all day that it was most likely going to collapse, so they prepared a script so they were ready to go the minute it happened. Then they got bad info from someone that it had collapsed already, and the rest is history. Wouldn't be the first time that the news reported something before it was official.

Very fast of the mark, Kevin!

Your explanation is possible. Although why BBC staff were being told "all day" that an unprecedented total collpase of a steel-framed towerblock was about to occur is a loose end in your theory.

A question in Parliament might be useful to help to clear up the matter. After all, the BBC is still accountable to the British public, isn't it?

Now who would ask the question, I wonder?

One would like to know WHO fed the story to the reporter and when.

[Kevin M. West]

I wouldn't say fast on the mark, just good timing that I logged in right after you posted it.

If you read any of the firefighter testimony regarding wtc7, it was well known that there was a danger of collapse. The fire cheif testified that they had a transit on the building that was showing it bulging out around the 5th floor. There were clear signs that the building was losing it's structural integrity, and it was public knowledge at the time.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Kevin M. West