This doesn't change a thing.

This is cover for the 10th anniversary, which is just around the corner.

OBL did not blow up the 3 towers.

9/11 Truth Ends Wars

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bin_laden Sure he is dead. He died around the beginning of 2002. What kills me is that some people will believe it. You can always tell when the President is lying. His lips are moving.

NOT !

The big question is what does it mean? Was this the real OBL or a fake, like the one in the video from Afghanistan, circa Dec. 2001?

I suspect the real OBL died some years ago, in which case this is a psyop.

Is it a prelude to another 9/11? I think we have to be very wary that it just might be.

One thing is certain: it makes an Obomber re-election very likely, absent some great fumble on his part within the theater of the crass media.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/bin-laden-dead-why-didnt-we-get-h...

The New York Times reported ... that we sent in 36 U.S. Special Forces troops to get Osama bin Laden when we knew he was in Tora Bora. By contrast, we sent nearly 150,000 soldiers to get Saddam Hussein.

Why didn't any Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) sharp shooters (the best in the world) hit Bin Laden in his gun hand, or his kidney dialysis machine. They could have captured him alive, to collect the $25 million reward. Plus, there was an $2 million bonus from the Airline Pilots Association.

Bin Laden was a potential wealth of Intel about terrorist groups, how he eluded capture so long, and who the hijackers were, through interrogation and cross examination at a trial. Bin Laden walked with a cane. Anyone on JSOC could have outrun him. They could have surrounded the mansion. Cops and FBI Agents often bring in criminals who shoot back, alive, to stand trial. That's what bringing someone to justice means. Not lynching without a trial.

The FBI's 10 Most Wanted Terrorists list never officially charged Bin Laden with 9/11. Even though he was charged with other crimes, even Charles Manson got a trial.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten

USAMA BIN LADEN

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

REWARD: 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.

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

On 21 July 2009:

The only proof of his death ...is the identification of his dead body.

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-07-21/osama-bin-laden-dead-or-alive-%E2%...

In February 2011:

Bin Laden.. died twenty times... So is he dead? Or do have we at least 19 false reports of him dying? (I'm exaggerating the number)

Because that's the first thing I think when I read that... 19 false reports!

http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=43152&sid=5c7731859ae9d...

When I made the comment above, I was thinking about this book:

Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? [Paperback] - David Ray Griffin

And what I meant was: I don't believe Bin Laden is dead, and I thought the book above fueling the speculation that Bin Laden was dead was premature and spawned by wishful thinking and naivete. Because if somebody allegedly dies multiple times, it means you're being fed false reports.

Time to re-evaluate David Ray Griffin's book. Thoughts?

The body of Osama bin Laden has already been buried at sea, the US broadcaster CNN reported Monday.

A senior US official in the administration of President Barack Obama said that the burial would be "handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition", DPA reported.

"This is something that we take very seriously. And so therefore this is being handled in an appropriate manner."

By Islamic tradition, most burials are within 24 hours of death.

The Afgan War has become too costly (and pointless), and needed closure. Hopefully, this gives the go ahead for the troops to come home.

Or will it lead to a "need" for more troops to fend off the retribution seeking Taliban...
Or will it lead to an ISI link which will justify full scale actions involving actual US troops in Pakistan...

Regardless, the OBL boogey-man has been invaluable in the past decade promoting the need to double the military budget.
In a way, his "death" is bad news for Haliburton, GE, McDonald Douglass, Lockheed, et al.

So one must wonder, who will be the next Emmanuel Goldstein?

1. You were indeed asking for evidence of non-killing and you were asking us to prove a negative. I don’t have to prove a dummy was thrown into the sea; those who think OBL’s been killed have to give us good evidence his body was thrown into the sea.

This is partially correct. I made an error: I said in my second reply that I asked for proof of previous death, but first, I asked you for proof that this whole event was staged. I didn't ask you for evidence of "non-killing", this is a contrived way of forcing my request to look like I was asking you to prove a negative. Likewise, I could forge a sentence directed at you which reads: "You were indeed asking for evidence of non-staging and you were asking us(?) to prove a negative" I am aware you're familiar with semantics, and you seem to be using your skills here, regrettably I think, for purposes of rhetorical obfuscation.

When someone makes a claim, he or she carries a burden of proof. The United States carries a burden of proof to show that they've captured and killed Osama Bin Laden, and you carry a burden of proof to demonstrate that the whole thing was an astonishing feat of showmanship and smoke and mirrors, in other words: a stageplay, a brazen sham, a theatrical performance, a complete and total hoax from beginning to end.

But the scale doesn't balance the burden equally in rational, evidence-based discourse. When somebody makes the claim:

"They faked the moon landing!"

The burden of proof on a party making such a claim is higher, way, way higher than a party making a claim that this isn't the case. This scenario is more nuanced, yet in order for your scenario to be true, several things are required, including but not limited to:

• Two helicopters were flown into Abbottabad, completely for show, and one broke down, also completely for show.
• A group of 22 people who were shot and killed or captured in a firefight were all fakes or simply expendable assets. ^[1]
• The Pakistani government is in on it.
• The threats made afterward by terrorists liaised with Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban were fabricated as part of the psyop. ^[2]
• The unknown number of crew of the aircraft carrier is part of this extremely elaborate hoax.
• The DNA match to Osama Bin Laden is fake. ^[3]
• Photos made will never be released and if they are, they're fake.
• All the tapes released thus far were fabrications, those before a date xxxx-xx-xx, when Osama Bin Laden supposedly really died, possibly excepted.
• Obama staged a dangerous operation with Navy Seals in a foreign country, all for the express purpose of faux-assassinating a terrorist whose actual assassination would bring his administration an enormous PR-benefit and prospect of re-election.
• All the mainstream media reports, including those citing various sources within the Obama administration and the military, and all their sources, are fakes.

While all you have in return to falsify the US government story, and I'm sorry for putting it quite like this... is a hunch and incredulity, and no direct evidence for any of these. Therefore, you do not satisfy the onus on you by any stretch of the imagination.

That will not do. This is what I call: 'falsification-speculation', which means you assert a claim to be false based on flimsy reasoning, fallacious arguments and speculation, then propose that your favorite fantasy is true instead, while you have no direct, positive evidence for this favorite fantasy. Direct positive evidence does not include 'raising doubts', does not include 'citing precedent', 'cui bono' or 'appeal to motive' and does not include 'incredulity'.

2. You now shift ground and ask where the proof of his previous death is. I never said I had proof of his previous death. I have never seen anything I would call proof, either of his being dead or of his being alive. But there are reasons to suspect he may have died earlier. What we have is circumstantial evidence, not proof. Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive but it is not worthless. DRG has collected a fair bit of this in his book.

3. You also ask if I have sought hard evidence of Osama’s (I assume that’s who you mean) death in previous reports. Yes, and, as I’ve just explained, I have not found it. Circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence.

I believe I have thoroughly corrected that situation above. Now let's move on to the other subject, for which I indeed also requested proof. David Ray Griffin speaks of 'deductive' and 'cumulative' arguments in his book 'The New Pearl Harbor'.

Cumulative arguments are arguments based on multiple pillars, any of which could fail, but as long as one remains, the argument stands, while deductive arguments require all pillars to remain intact for the argument to hold, because if one pillar fails, the whole thing collapses in a chain reaction.

You said you never you had proof of Osama Bin Laden being dead. You say 'we have circumstantial evidence'. This is your basis for proposing the conspiracy theory about the raid on and assassination of Osama Bin Laden, which has now been widely reported across the globe. As you put it: "I think Osama bin rottin' for years now."

You also say you have no proof of 'his being alive'. Yet between 9/11 and now, Bin Laden released numerous tapes. ^[4]

In the worst case scenario, Bin Laden dead immediately after 9/11, or on 9/11, all thirty-five audio and video messages were faked. I am aware the authentication of some of these video and audio tapes is uncertain. Yet no conclusive evidence of fakery of any of them has ever emerged. Rather, many clumsy claims were discredited in the same vein birther claims are being discredited now.

A 'cumulative argument' does not apply to reports of the death of an individual. David Ray Griffin also speaks of different types of impossibility, I quote:

"logical impossibilities (such as making a round square), metaphysical impossibilities (such as traveling back to the past [where you might kill your grandfather before he had children]), and physical impossibilities (which are ruled out by the laws of physics in our particular universe, such as the law of the conservation of momentum)." ^[5]

I'd define a human being dying multiple times as a physical impossibility.

Therefore, the credibility of reports of Bin Laden's death diminish each and every time they are trotted out. Yet, these reports are taken together and presented as if they strengthen, not weaken, the case of Bin Laden being dead. I warned about this clear cut logical problem on Truth Action in February. I believe I have been vindicated, not discredited, by recent events. Bin Laden wasn't dead, but alive. Am I too skeptical for the 9/11 Truth Movement? Because I'm certainly not reverent of authority, I'm simply weighing the plausibility of competing claims.

4. Was I as skeptical then as I am now, you ask? If you mean, do I approach all claims with skepticism, the answer is, yes. On this subject I also regard the US military-intelligence community as about as untrustworthy as it gets. When Rumsfeld was Sec of Defense he made no secret of the fact that one of his key strategic assets was deception. Given this, and given the mountain of lies we’ve been told, especially with respect to OBL and 9/11, it is not rational to rely on anything the US military-intelligence community says on this subject.

6. "If Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in this raid then the military and the intelligence community must not always lie about everything and we have a circular argument." Your basic premise is wrong. I never said the military and intelligence community always lie about everything. This is a straw man argument. If they always lied they’d be ineffective. The point is that we can’t know when they’re lying so we don’t trust them.

As I explained in my response to point 1., I believe your skepticism is lacking. I would even go so far as saying you are in danger of being compromised by confirmation bias (no offense), to the point of tending towards an "everything must be fake" state of mind, each allegation of fakery serving to support the other, forming a wicked chain of mutually reinforcing falsification-speculation theories.

In the case of the Pentagon, the Pentagon Building Performance report is, broadly speaking, save for a few mundane errors, correct: the plane hit the building. The eyewitnesses are trustworthy in the sense that they are not 'in on it' and their eyewitness reports are correct: they saw the plane hit the building. Many of them work for the military. The photos of Pentagon debris taken by the military, FEMA and the FBI, and the evidence about the plane crash in the Moussaoui trial and at other venues is by and large... correct. The black box is correct. The radar data is correct. The C-130 pilot is correct. The physical evidence is real, not fake. So if this is true: then what is CIT doing, claiming evidence supplied by the 'suspect' is to be rejected? This is a circular argument. The 'suspect' can never exonerate himself.

You claim I employed a straw man argument by commenting on your statement as follows "If Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in this raid then the military and the intelligence community must not always lie about everything and we have a circular argument." .. whereby I essentially condense your claim into "the military and intelligence community always lies".

But in order for that to be a straw man argument, my paraphrasing of you ought not to be equivalent to what you said, verbatim:

"I take it as a point of departure that what the military and intelligence community says is one hundred percent untrustworthy. "

One hundred percent untrustworthy, you take that as point of departure. Not 90%, not 80%, not 75%, but 100%. What could untrustworthy mean but false, inaccurate, not true? Did I misunderstand and did you mean the military and intelligence community does tell the truth sometimes? But you cannot know for certain? How does this weakened position justify such rigorous, prejudiced dismissal of an event, based on a conspiracy theory which requires so many aspects of fakery as to border on completely implausible?

5. If many sources have declared him dead, do I agree that at most one of them is correct? Of course, but where does that take us?

Again, that should be obvious. If, say 5 sources claim Bin Laden died, all in different circumstances, in different locations and at different dates, then 4 out of 5, at minimum, are bosh, bunkum, canards, humbug, poppycock, gibberish. This realization alone harbors more than enough reasons to reexamine if the "Osama Bin Rottin"-hypothesis has any merit whatsoever. It commands you to raise the bar significantly on the strength of evidence you are willing to accept before you ever believe a Bin Laden death report, not acknowledged by authorities, nor by Bin Laden's circle and refuted by audio and video tapes, again.

7. This really isn’t very complicated: we’re all just looking for sound evidence so that we don’t have to accept an argument from authority. And here’s the kind of evidence we need: OBL’s body! Now we’re told the US military-intelligence people had it and they immediately fed it to the fish. If they did this, they’re much dumber than I think they are.

You would never be able to see his body with your own eyes. You would probably doubt any verification by third parties, save some exceptions from trusted forensic pathologists (Cyril Wecht, perhaps), but that isn't going to happen anyway.

So I truly doubt there would be anything you'd be satisfied with. In the mean time, alleged and shaky falsification or doubt is no grounds for conjecture which does not satisfy your (heavy) burden of proof. We could have a long discussion about how heavy your burden is, and how heavy the burden of the US government, but given the reports and the details released so far, I believe the scale does not tip in your favor. Ultimately, this is where the divide between us is.

8. I really have no stake in the outcome of this argument. If I can be convinced the guy survived all these years and has just now been shot in the head and buried at sea, fine. It doesn’t change anything substantial for me. But I’m not going to accept without good evidence a story from the very agencies that lie to us all the time.

Okay. But you already proposed an alternative: Osama Bin Rottin'. This is step further than mere doubt.

Something else though: "Agencies that lie to us all the time" ..... (??)

You said, and I quote:

"Your basic premise is wrong. I never said the military and intelligence community always lie about everything"

It appears I really didn't commit a straw man fallacy after all.

Edit: a spelling error.

Attorneys know how to out a liar on the witness stand.
Ask for details and more details, quickly.
We should insist on answers that should be easy and quick for someone to give, if they are telling the truth.
If they are lying, they have to stop and think of a plausible answer, on the spot, exposing contradictions.
If the story about Bin Laden living at the house is true, it should be easy for the story tellers to tell us:
1. How did Bin Laden buy the house, in what name? Who did he buy it from? Or who built it?
2. His mortgage company, and real estate agent, or if he is renting, the landlord's name?
3. Whose name are the utilities in?
4. Who made the food deliveries. (Did they not recognize Bin Laden?)
5. Who were house cleaners, maids, chauffeur, baby sitters, or other house help?
6. Phone or internet, if it was installed at any time?
7. Repairman, plumbers, lawn mowing, housing inspector, exterminator, etc.?
8. Property taxes and home insurance?
Then call and get confirmation statements from the people related to the points above.
These should all be verifiable with written records and receipts within a short period of time.

""Claims that the al-Qaeda leader had died while firing an automatic weapon at commandos were withdrawn, with President Barack Obama’s spokesman admitting “he was unarmed”. A dramatic description of bin Laden using his wife as a “human shield” and forcing her to sacrifice her life also proved to be false. The woman was still alive and was taken into custody with several of the terrorist’s children.

"In an embarrassing climb-down, Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, admitted that the previous version of events — which came mostly from the chief US counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan — had been put out “with great haste”.

"The about-turn left the US open to accusations of a cover-up and led to calls for video footage of the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and images of bin Laden’s body to be released to end conspiracy theories.

"However, the White House suggested that pictures of bin Laden’s body were too “gruesome” to be made public because they could prove “inflammatory”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491113/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-White-House-backtracks-on-how-bin-Laden-died.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think I can handle 'gruesome' - I've seen enough gory, violent made-in-America Hollywood movies to handle 'gruesome' :)

I'd rather have the picture - because as a world citizen - in a world affected by the US War on Terror - I feel cheated that OBL wasn't captured and brought to the Hague for a transparent trial - in line with international law and befitting the law professor and Nobel Peace Prize Winning President.

I see that OBL's computer is apprently being scrutinised by the US military who describe it as the 'mother lode of intelligence'

But we also heard this: "NSA figured out, somehow, that there was no telephone or Internet service in the compound."

So, I'm wondering how this isolated man who lived secretly behind walls in a remote compound for a couple of years - with no internet service - managed to run the terror mother lode?

I just got a strange feeling of helplessness.

Some thoughts that come up in my mind:

1) I don't know if the story is true, I don't know if OBL was alive and killed and dumped into the sea.
2) I don't trust anything any US government official is saying, some of it can or will be true, but more of it will probably be false, for obvious reasons. mixing truths with lies is an excellent way of keeping people in the dark. Overflowing them with truths and lies will do the same thing.
3) I don't know how long OBL has been a kidney patient, but they don't usually get that old.
4) I heard that Obama said that they captured OBL AFTER a firefight, and then killed him, which sounds like an execution to me.
5) It's very handy that he's dead and his body is gone, because now he doesn't have to stand trial, which is handy, because you don't have to prove he was behind 9/11.
6) I don't know if AQ knows he was alive up until May 1st, or pretended he was still alive.
7) I don't know if there actually exists something like AQ.
8) I know this comes in very handy for Obama
9) I worry about how they will use this to keep the WoT alive.
10) I think the TM should just focus on the fact that OBL was never charged with 9/11 and wasn't wanted for it.
11) How do we get to focus on this last point? In my country (Netherlands) it was broadcasted several times that OBL was behind 9/11, which pissed my off very much.
12) What's the best we can do, to counter the present mode of joy about the seeming fact that he's dead now?

Let's connect all the dots from Osama's alias "Tim Osman" days, to Osama's writings about his hatred of the West for bringing troops into Saudia Arabia, to accusing Osama for the embassy bombings and to Osama's "let it happen escape' in the mountains of Tora Bora and find what we have in common from all these episodes of Osama's life. Do we have the makings of a Middle East Terror Patsy? Now I wonder who the masterminds were that would do such a thing and create such havoc in the world. Could it be that these same masterminds created his recent demise even though they knew full well his demise was necessary soon after 9/11.

that Osama bin Laden was not wanted for the 911 attacks by the FBI.

The video of him allegedly admitting to it was found like a needle in a haystack in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan in Dec. 2001, after the invasion. The FBI apparently had a problem with that video as it did not deem it as grounds to indict bin Laden for the 911 attacks.

Shortly after 911 Colin Powell said a white paper would be released which proved the guilt of bin Laden for the 911 attacks. Incredibly, no white paper was ever provided to the public.

The Taliban said they would turn over bin Laden to American authorities if they were provided with evidence of his involvement. They were never provided with any evidence and Afghanistan was just attacked, without the American people being told they offered to turn him over with evidence being provided. Noam Chomsky has even made a point of this in the last year, when he said "the Taliban weren't given any evidence because the Bush administration didn't have any evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement (in the 911 attacks)".

It is the lack of evidence for Osama bin Laden's involvement along with the illicit demolition of WTC 7 and the destruction of its steel before it could be properly examined and analyzed that anyone wanting the truth about 911 should be discussing.

I do not doubt that SEALs killed someone in that compoud.
I dont even doubt they killed "an" OBL there.

my question is:

IF
there they really killed the "original Osama" (the one that "officially" from a cave ordered and run the 9/11 hijackings and attacks)

THEN
I should also believe that ALL the "obl" photos, VIDEOS and audio files were original OBL spoken.

BUT
as many ppl knows, so many and many doubts veils the autenticity of those photos and videos and audio files

SO
can please someone smarter than me, explain me HOW TO BELIEVE THE TWO THINGS AT SAME TIME?

ATTENTION MOVEMENT! Al qaeda has now released a statement confirming Bin Ladens death. Still think its fake? Don't you see its good that he will never walk the earth again to be used as a propaganda tool?

How realible are these sources. Can they tell us where are the dialysis machines for bin laden s kidney illness

How realible are these sources. Can they tell us where are the dialysis machines for bin laden s kidney illness

How realible are these sources. Can they tell us where are the dialysis machines for bin laden s kidney illness

what the new videos shows?

- show an old man watching OBL videos

- have no audio, so no one till now knows if he's say "this is all bullshit" or " oh yeah, that's me! great!"

- show old videos, in which obl face is well different fron the faked fat face saying he's responabile for 911 attacks

can these things considered proofs? and proofs of what?

to the research of the best folks we have in this area? The Jon Gold's, Richard Gage's, David Chandler's, Jim Hoffman's, Frank Legge's and Kevin Ryan's and others (which include a few folks here in this thread)?

The man's dead. Good. Off to more important things.