Spidey,
Just saw this listed as a source of sources on AJ’s site.
Lots of good info about the commission being compromised etc.
Definitely interesting.
Are you serious?
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[82] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11.2C_2001_attacks).
You do realize that there’s a difference between “linking” someone to something and actual hard evidence by legal standards?
Bin Laden’s poster has been last revised in November 2001 and there’s no mention of 9/11 attacks so I don’t know why this is such big news.
You asked, “And who has ever claimed that he was directly involved?” I gave you evidence showing who “claimed” he was directly involved. You did not ask “who has ever provided actual hard evidence?” Nice strawman.
But has anyone actually said about having “hard evidence” in relation to 9/11?
You’re sorta cornered here. If you’re going to argue there is no hard evidence, then it’s hard to buy your extreme concern about Al Qaeda. We’ve been told Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda, so if there is no hard evidence, then why would anyone accept that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11?
This is the problem with government propaganda. It relies on double think (two conflicting premises held simultaneously).
The U.S. government made a big hoopla about Osama bin Laden and 9/11, and they have no “hard evidence” that he did anything. That is the point I was making.
Maybe you should read the article.
No, that is typical of debunkers. It is a strawman. They setup or pick the most outrageous claims, and then easily debunk them. I hope that is not what you are attempting to do, as I provided a source on this very page of the thread.
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.
I haven’t investigated all of these, nor do I intend to. I have bigger fish to fry than 9/11. But the very first link is the one I was talking about.
One has to ask, if the US government’s story matches with the truth, then why would they have to obstruct investigation? Why would they resist investigation? Investigation of a matching account of their story would add to the popular support for government, Afghanistan, Iraq and anything else Bush could dream up. They had no incentive to prevent their account of things being investigated, unless it was not true.
I’m not saying that this is proof, but again, it is indicative of the sort of doublethink that government propaganda encourages.
- That government prevents investigation to protect the truth. (War is peace, War is terror etc.)
If we believe FBI, there’s enough evidence to convict him of other bombings. He was first on the Most Wanted in 1999.
I’m more concerned about the fact the the FBI and possibly the administration received intelligence about the plot to fly the planes in the landmark buildings devised by the WTC bombers as early as 1995 and didn’t do anything to address this threat. Simply arming the pilots and sending more federal marshalls aboard would have been a big step forward. But they only investigated some flight schools and that was it.
He was one of the key figures, that was obvious even prior to 9/11.
Al Qaeda is not an hierarchical corporation. It’s a network of related groups, cells and individual fighters that actually started as a fundraising network for Afghanistan insurgents against the Soviets but Bin Laden more ambitious plans of global jihad against the West and pro-western governments.
And who do you think were Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Some random guys who decided that toppling the twin towers would be a fun way to spend a day? Didn’t accomplish it the first time around then decided to come up with a better plan and spent another 7 years on carrying it out (even after Yousef was already taken)? In addition to other things they planned or did, such as the Millennium plan or beheading the infidels.
All the information about the key figures in al Qaeda shows that they’re smart, ruthless, dedicated characters and not mere government’s puppets. Probably more dangerous than any other infamous terrorists groups since they’re not funded by any single government, decentralised and independent. James Bond has nothing on them 
You know, I really don’t care what the government says or how it justifies wars or its failures. I’ve wanted to find out more about what happened and tried to read some independent investigators, like Peter Lance, who’s very critical of the government’s screw-ups and cover-ups. If nothing else, it’s a fascinating account, worthy of any spy thriller, except with real body counts.
There are way too many discrepancies in that oped-ed article:
“We found that we did ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been contained in such videotapes.”
“Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information…”
“The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the interrogations.”
“During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests…”
“…videotapes were not mentioned.”
I wouldn’t exactly call that an obstruction, nor would I find it strange that the CIA is trying to cover up evidence of its interrogation techniques. Is it evidence of a conspiracy or the CIA as a grossly incompetent government agency? History would show the latter.
The last link I used was for the purpose of showing the “set-up to fail” excerpt in its proper context.
What do you think of Alex Jones?
This is not entirely true. You’ve tried to argue the government’s case, and used the FBI as a source.
Your entire post is an evasion of the points raised in my post. It’s hard to treat your opinions as credible if you keep moving the goal posts.
You can take that up with the NYT and the heads of the 9/11 Commission. I just report sources. There are other sources on that site.
At the end of the day, you will believe what you want to believe. And most people prefer to believe that their government would not kill them.
To prove that FBI never officially wanted Bin Laden in connection with 9/11. It’s not the same as the stated reasong for wars (or how they were manipulated by the media).
For goodness sake, they claim he funded the hijackers, and was the leader of the organization they worked for.
But I guess that’s not direct enough, eh?