Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

By Noam Chomsky
May 7, 2011

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

America should obey the laws when enforcing the laws

Right on Noam! American should obey the laws when enforcing the laws, especially if we want to set an example for the world. We can't say "we have a great Court of Law system that your country should follow" if we don't follow it ourselves. The U.S. Marshals bring in fugitives to Court every day, and they bring them in alive. They use helicopters and guns too, but also tear gas and hand cuffs. An unarmed man, and especially unarmed woman, are no match for a Navy SEAL with a machine gun and body armor. The story of her lunging at the soldier sounds bogus. There was no reason for shooting them - unless he was the "fall guy" to take the blame for 9/11 . Bin Laden should be alive now, under interrogation, and the Department of Justice should be preparing their case against him for trial, conviction, and sentencing. Terrorists try to go around the legal proper channels and use violence and killing to try to get some result. We cannot stop terrorism by doing the same.

This issue is a great opportunity to get more people to question 9/11. It takes just a few minutes to make a free account and leave your comments to reach the public at Reader Supported News:

This sentence is hilarious

"There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them."

And ... they crashed a previously unknown 'stealth helicopter' not because it was attacked, but because the pilot couldn't hover it properly.

I'm really impressed. I'm surprised no-one was killed from friendly fire.

Course they were

They will just announce it right before the election and 10th anniversary, but then refuse to show the body to create hyper speculation and solidify the official story of course), then say the body was dumped in the water but in a proper Christian ceremony. And then Bush will start taking the credit. :)

Bin Laden was not an elected head of state

..bin Laden had taken public responsibility for the USS Cole and other deadly attacks (which is why Clinton went after him),
the UN had given the US government leave to pursue and kill bin Laden in necessary, and Obama had struck a "live
pursuit" deal with Pakistan that allowed the US to go in and take bin Laden out. Bin Laden has also vowed further attacks.

We killed nearly a million people because they MIGHT have helped bin Laden. We tortured hundreds or thousands
because they might know someone who knows someone who might know something about bin Laden.

I really can't believe this is something people on the left are wringing their hands over.

The point is that not withstanding any other crimes that

Osama bin Laden may have been wanted for, he was not wanted for the 911 attacks.

He appears to have been used as a patsy for 911 and when there isn't a good case for prosecution against a patsy, for the crime they are blamed for, they would have to be eliminated and the perception of their guilt maintained. Otherwise, more investigation would be warranted to find out who actually did commit the crime.

The same was done with Lee Harvey Oswald, as the case against him for the Kennedy assassination was essentially one of perception only and would not have stood up in court. The Warren Commission was merely an affirmation of J. Edgar Hoover's quickly put together case against Lee Harvey Oswald, with no adversary system and cross examination of witnesses allowed.

In this situation, even though the FBI admitted they had no evidence against Osama bin Laden for 911 that isn't well known enough and the media fueled demonization connecting him to 911 was sufficient to maintain a perception of his guilt for it. That perception would have been destroyed if he was taken to court for this particular crime and would have left a void opening the door for calls for a new investigation.


All this does is reinforce the lie that bin Laden was actually still alive and responsible for 9/11. He may as well work for Fox News.

Show "Irritation" by SnowCrash
Show "YEP!" by kdub

I sense

a wee bit disapproval of some of us not going along with the "whole raid was fake" meme. I think the jig is up, kdub. We're going to have to conform.

One thing I would be interested in though, would be a ten-way debate where all ten theories of Bin Laden's death are represented and debated. Obviously, at maximum only one of the participants can be right, while the other nine are by logic, full of it. Should be very interesting indeed. Who to believe? In all cases, a corollary of the Osama Bin Rottin' hypothesis is that all tapes produced after the date of his alleged death must be fake. For convenience, try to forget that the same biometrics companies who claim one of the tapes was fake, also claim the rest of the tapes are genuine. Try also to forget that even that one claim of fakery was refuted by a competitor in the field and heavily nuanced and weakened by the experts of the former study themselves, pointing out inadequacies in their own research.

if support for the candidates is equally distributed and they do equally well, there's a 90% chance a random audience member will believe a liar. Remember, only one of them can be right, meaning the other nine theories were made up from whole cloth. Hey I almost forgot: since at minimum 9 out of 10 are full of it, 10 out of 10 could also be full it. That would mean there could be a 100% chance a random audience member believes a liar.

Can somebody point out an error in this very basic statistical formulation or expand upon it? Can arguments for death be cumulative?

I'm clairvoyant; I predicted it on February 16th, 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!

Why believe the 20th?

Who benefits from reports of his death?

Bin Laden.

Who is letting him benefit from these reports, instead of hunting him down, but keeping him alive, so that the war on terror can continue, not ending ... "in our lifetimes"?

I guess Obama had a different idea than Bush huh? Am I an Obama supporter? No. He assassinated a man who should have been arrested and tried. Any idea why that screen allegedly went to black? Plausible deniability. Maybe somebody in the MIC decided it was better if the SEAL team only obeyed the "kill" part of the "kill or capture" order. That way, OBL never has to be tried, and no embarrassing facts come to light. Which master do the Navy SEALs serve anyway? The CIA were in charge, weren't they? Approximately twenty-five armed SEALs, the best of the best, who were apparently brave enough to 'double tap' an old man not resisting because his daughter and wife were in the same room with him. Yet, they had enough time to shoot his wife in the leg with pinpoint accuracy, not killing her.

Every single militant Islamic group of any significance has confirmed the death of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad. Why are we focusing on whether or not the whole assassination was a hoax, while the question of why is much more interesting? Why kill OBL instead of capturing him? They didn't want a trial. Because a trial would open up a can of worms. The notion that Bin Laden couldn't have been tried with sufficient security is a convenient myth that helps justify this assassination in the minds of the flag-draped zealots who believe in "my country, right or wrong".

I hear you..

..though we did have videotape post-9/11 (not the grainy fat-cheeked disputed one) in which bin Laden does not
deny the attacks, and promises future ones. Regardless, he would never have been given an open trial in US
custody in which he could have meaningfully spoken in his own defense--you know this.

I don't know anything about his culpability--whether he planned 9/11 and Cheney got wind of it and basically took
the attack up several notches and ran it from the inside, or if bin Laden knowingly struck a dirty deal with Cheney and Rummy,
or if he was just the patsy. I do know that he admitted attacks against the US, promised more, and was the alibi for all these
wars. I don't think the US citizenry would have gotten anything meaningful out of him if we'd kept him in custody, either because
he was guilty (and wouldn't be forthcoming with the truth), or because he wasn't (and the US wouldn't be forthcoming with the truth).

OBL 'responsible for 9/11'...

Chomsky says nothing of the sort, in fact he alludes to the contrary, which is why I thought this was an important article to post...

What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

I'm not Chomsky's biggest fan either but when the old man is right, he's right.


... Chomsky does think that the FBI got it right in April 2002:

"There is plenty of evidence that the FBI surmise in April 2002, which I wrote about at the time, is correct: that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, but implemented in the UAE and Germany (and of course the US). No one has suggested a credible alternative, certainly not the TM, which has been laboring to point the finger to Saddam (which is ridiculous) and bin Laden, though they cannot seem to comprehend this simple fact."

So, as I've noted earlier here, Chomsky refers to FBI statements from 2002 that fully accord with the idea that the much-hyped international terrorist "network" was behind it and even planned ("hatched") it in Afghanistan and used other countries in implementing.

Washington dismissed

Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this is probably the closest Chomsky has come to publicly questioning the official 9/11 story. I think this is a very good sign.

Not entirely unprecedented

He actually made similar comments in an article a few months back, that got some attention on this website. Though it's possible he goes a bit further here.

I like what he says here about GWB in contrast with Bin Laden: '...and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime....'

Also this: '...naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."'

Does FBI Need To Have Their Heads Examined According to Obama?

Hello Truthseekers & Truthtellers,

On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Osama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “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.” (Source: Click image for large format.

On the 60 Minutes TV Show May 8, 2011 Obama said,

" And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn't deserve what he got needs to have his head examined."

The FBI would qualify as "anyone" so according to Obama some heads over at the FBI need to be examined because these FBI agents surely must have questioned whether to charge Osama bin Laden for the crimes of 9/11 and then made the decision they had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 so they didn't list it as one of his crimes. The FBI should now question what Obama just stated and back up their 2006 statement challenging Obama that they don't feel they need to have their heads examined because they didn't charge bin Laden for mass murder on American soil and therefore he didn't deserve what he got (execution) for the crime of 9/11.

What this all means is our government executed a man for a crime he wasn't charged with if we believe the official government account of Osama bin Laden's death..

Take Care Matt

Chomsky's cover-up of 9/11 and JFK murder conspiracy forgotten?

Of course, this article may well have some merit, but why are Noam Chomsky's words being reprinted here without any reference to his heinous role in covering up the glaring holes in the official account of September 11 and, before that, the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

If anyone has still not seen it, please watch Barry Zwicker's video The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers, also (hopefully) embedded below:

And by the same token...

Why are you republishing the work of Barrie Zwicker without any reference to his propagation of some of the most fraudulent 9/11 theories and his shameful role in the snitchjacketing of 9/11 truth activists?

Would you substantiate any of your allegations against Zwicker?

Much of Barry Zwicker's vido of Noam Chomsky uses Chomsky's own words about 9/11, JFK and the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

I am not aware of any of Zwicker's "propagation of some of the most fraudulent 9/11 theories and his shameful role in the snitchjacketing of 9/11 truth activists." Would you care substantiate any of this?

Either / or

Either BZ is a paranoid fruitcake-or you have some explaining to do-like why are you a member of and posting on a compromised website run by under cover secret agents?

Show "BZ" by jimd3100

Can we have more than just ad-hominem attacks?

Barrie Zwicker's presentation about Noam Chomsky was fully substantiated, unlike the posts against Barry Zwicker so far on this forum. Could those who are critical of Zwicker please post substantial material and not just ad-hominem attacks?


It's called "RCFP's Waterloo", and you can read it at the link below. It's a 'fisking' of the Rock Creek Free Press and Barry Zwicker. To my regret, because I liked Barry Zwicker. Until he started accusing 911blogger of "working for the other side".

Hitchen's comments

Christopher Hitchens wrote on this in Slate ( They are both wrong of course.

Hitchens' Hitpiece is a cracker ...

Hitchens: "Sometimes the same person who hails the bravery of al-Qaida's martyrs also believes that the Jews planned the "operation." As far as I know, only leading British "Truther" David Shayler, a former intelligence agent who also announced his own divinity, has denied that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, took place at all. (It was apparently by means of a hologram that the widespread delusion was created on television.)

That's a lot of strawmen to stuff into one paragraph - the Jews, David Shayler and holograms. And it doesn't get any better.

Seems something pushed Hitchens' buttons.


is aggressively atheistic and his disapproval of organized religion makes him despise Christianity and Islam, shaping his POV on the matter, even having him siding with Bush. He chooses to critique Chomsky, because he wants to pick a fight with the largest guy in the room. He has crossed swords with Chomsky before. Chomsky usually wins.

Hitchens even attacked Mother Theresa. That should give you an idea of his position vis-a-vis religion. His criticisms of her were justified, however.

Hitchens' supreme object of hatred is Henry Kissinger. Hitchens is currently dying of esophageal cancer.

May God rest his soul

when the cancer takes him.


classy. But don't bother. Farcical "prayer groups" have already been set up, to gloat over Hitchens' illness.

The supreme irony

... of course, is this article by Christopher Hitchens:

The Latest Kissinger Outrage
Why is a proven liar and wanted man in charge of the 9/11 investigation?

By Christopher Hitchens

He says the following:

There is a tendency, some of it paranoid and disreputable, for the citizens of other countries and cultures to regard President Bush's "war on terror" as opportunist and even as contrived. I myself don't take any stock in such propaganda. But can Congress and the media be expected to swallow the appointment of a proven coverup artist, a discredited historian, a busted liar, and a man who is wanted in many jurisdictions for the vilest of offenses? The shame of this, and the open contempt for the families of our victims, ought to be the cause of a storm of protest.

That sums up Hitchens' curious position.

Alex Jones

I am both amazed and appalled at the deegree to which the 9/11 truth movement has been co-opted by Alex Jones with his position on the bin Laden kill as a hoax.

I think this is why they initially witheld information, to lure the "conspiracy culture" of Alex Jones and though him, much of the 9/11 truth movement into staking out a position whereby the raid and kill of bin Laden would be declared a hoax and a fabrication. Then, according to plan, bin Laden's wives are interviewed, one of whom was present at the raid, and various materials from the raid, released for public consumption.

Way to go Alex - you took the bait hook, liner and sinker and made much of the 9/11 truth movement look like fools. You've damaged the truth and strenthened the myth, all in a bid for ratings and fame and fortune..

We agree about that.

But the problem is much wider than just AJ.


the problem is something that I'd describe as a "conspiracy culture", that and the dumbing down process you get with so many people willing to swallow any lie or half truth from whatever source whether MSM or Alternative Media.

Sometimes I get the impression that the average American citizen or "netizen" has the comprehension level of gradeschool child, with failing grades.

Stupidity - that's the larger problem.

But this bin Laden thing, and the way it was handled, as part of an "info war" has Obama and Cass Sunstein written all over it, and it's directed, at least in part, squarely at the 9/11 truth movement, to undercut it and blunt its growth as an historical force, while shoring up the 9/11 MYTH as historical fact (even though the twin towers never did "collapse").

This is what I've been seeing, and I am laying a big part of the blame at the feet and the greed and megalomania, of one Alex Jones, for not waiting on all the data before making bold and definitive claims, and for not thinking it all the way through as I have and in the process recognizing the psy-op element for what it REALLY is, in truth and in reality, where our collective belief that bin Laden was ALREADY dead was nothing but mere speculation, and the ISI-CIA connection, however, being the REAL story ie: they've had bin Laden "on ice" (not literally Alex) all along. Heck, CIA black bag funding might well have PAID for the construction of bin Laden's little hideout.. note, we never did find out who really owned the place..

Edit: Bin Laden death hoax/fakery, is about as helpful to our movement, at this juncture, as "no-planer" video fakery was. Given what's at stake, it's an OUTRAGE, and given the nature of the official story myth, it's perhaps even more damaging to our credibility than the no-planer video fakery nonsense. Way to go Alex Jones and followers.. you really did a number on the 9/11 truth movement this time, in a way and a manner that was most certainly "by design". You fell into the trap in pursuit of the cheese.


oftentimes, I actually feel guilty about railing against theories which make no sense and their enthusiastic supporters. I don't find it 'fun' to dampen well-intentioned enthusiasm for 9/11 Truth, but the consequences of encouraging the acceptance of false theories are obvious, eventually people will feel betrayed. I can't allow that to happen. Besides, telling the truth is an end, not just a means. But again, I don't like to be on the opposing side of folks, AJ fans, clearly trying to further a liberty agenda, but misdirected and therefore ineffective and counterproductive. That's an understatement.

I know many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement are well intentioned and they must find my criticisms insulting. The capacity for the internet community to invent new baseless theories exceeds my ability to counter them by a wide margin. Am I polishing my badge (ZBH's criticism of me, which I thought was funny and justified) and is what I'm doing counterproductive? Some conjecture has, over the years, threatened to swallow this movement whole.

I then ask myself: what would be preferable: the unavoidable widespread disappointment and backlash of venerated theories eventually proven untenable by accumulating counter-evidence.... or the temporary emotional sting of an unforgiving skeptic/critic who tries to preempt such a catastrophe? Truth is way more important than popularity. Popularity is easily achieved reinforcing groupthink.

The large research database people like me and Jimd3100 have created for ourselves is being put to good use, in my opinion. It's not necessarily intelligence which helps us see through the fluff, it's the hard work we put into verifying claims.

I wonder if Chomsky has enough spice left in him to see the international intelligence structure responsible for making 9/11 possible in order to exploit it, the ensuing cover-up and the implications, without tracking sideways into attempting to exonerate Bin Laden. Because he appears to be coming around somewhat. Jon Gold, if you have anything to do with that.. thank you.

Proof of the CD of the twin towers and building 7

is pretty straightforward ie: twin towers exploded from top to bottom in about 13 seconds, where free fall in air from the same height is just over 10. Try counting as fast as you can or clapping your hands together as fast as possible 94 times (for the north tower) within a span of only 3 seconds and you get the picture.
And then there's everything else from super hot temps producing molten metal to atomized steel in the form of microspheres to the undebunked military grade nano-thermite in the dust, to the first hand eyewitness including firemen blown off their feet by explosions at varying levels of the building.

there's no need for all the rest, the hard physical reality is right there before our eyes, recorded as it actually occured in reality and preserved in perpetuity.

It's something even Chomsky would be able to see clearly, if he opened his eyes and mind.

The destruction of the twin towers is the crux of the psy-op. It did not occur as a result of the plane impacts and fires, and could not have, not according to the immutable laws of physics.

We don't need you, me or Alex Jones - all that's needed is the cold hard truth and reality, no matter how painful.

The buildings did not "collapse". They were brought down with explosives in a high precision engineered military style demolition.

The reality of it cannot lie.

International intelligence structure analysis...?


those three seconds between absolute free fall in air and the timed destruction of the buildings from top to bottom..?

How easily we are distracted and how easily we can be made to deflect one another from the painful truth and reality , for no other reason, than an ego-boost..

I hope we will

embrace all forms of credible research. Because that is a way of using a cumulative argument properly. Cumulative arguments don't apply to death reports, they do apply to multiple routes and avenues of evidence pointing to complicity in, and responsibility and culpability for, the 9/11 attacks.

The nanothermite paper has not been debunked. But the same thing goes for the insider trading paper by Alan Poteshman, professor of finance at the University of Illinois.

I haven't seen anybody lose a debate on the ISI/CIA/GIP triangle either. It's staring you in the face. The 9/11 Commission report and the NIST reports are frauds, and at least for the former, it's exceedingly easy to make the case, while the latter does involve lots of empirical analysis of, among other things, the visual record, to prove NIST's account impossible. I know that has been achieved. But falsification leaves a gap, to be filled in by verification: the papers published by Jones et alia are leading the way.

Let's be critical of all of the above, and let our criticisms fortify and strengthen those lines of inquiry which are promising, and alter or dismiss lines of inquiry which have little or no merit.

We might bump heads over specific research in the future, but I encourage and appreciate your skeptical disposition.

Such Lofty Sentiments to Hold

After harassing people who have legitimate questions around "the raid". Do you have to post so much on this forum presenting yourself as the pure guiding force and overlord of all critical thinking on 911Blogger.

Consensus here is not yours to make. It is also quite oppressive.

I've antagonized

many people who refuse to stop promulgating falsehoods. I believe I've made that abundantly clear in the exchange above. When I strike a conciliatory tone, I will do so at my pleasure, if not, then not.

Please get over the dent in your ego and get busy getting your research methodology into shape instead of blaming me for your mistakes, because I've got better things to do on 911blogger than slapboxing with chafed lightweights eager to settle 'scores'.

Wrong About "The Raid"

This nasty punk routine you have going here is getting tiresome. Just admit you are wrong and examine your research that takes pentagon press releases as "found in nature" artifacts. This is a stunning weakness in your fundamental approach. You look like a total histrionic kook that spends all day firing off tirades at people who raise reasonable questions while stroking others with whom you wish to curry favor.

Much of your research tends to devolve to to official theory with some light CD denial thrown in.

From here on in if I dont like what you write I will just give a down vote and move on as one sage commenter suggested when a similar situation arose recently.

Unhinged and cocksure

So I guess I'm a "histrionic kook" now and I rely on Pentagon press releases. You're becoming unhinged, BMAC. You're welcome to debate me anywhere, any time on this topic (except on this thread, because it's off topic).

I suggest you pick a thread about the Pentagon and start "taking me to task", after all, you're humorously cocksure you're going to do well. Won't do it? Then I take that as an admission of defeat, BMAC. Bring it on. You must be joking.

And don't pretend as if you hadn't been voting me down incessantly already. I noticed that and the favor will be returned.

BMAC is too harsh here

but I have two things to say: He is right in somewhat that you give the impression you are solely responsible for "consensus" here, via lenghty comments and the always helping voting system (PS, oh, I even voted you up here). So sometimes less is more.

And: The way you handled the "Osama raid" is typicially, I suppose, how far the division between us goes. Think about my working theory: Cass Sunstein reloaded: Obama delivers us a "birth certificate", not able to prove him right, because it looks clearly fraudulent with all the pdf-layers. Now that's not proof it is faked, but it is no proof that this is legitimate, either. Just days ahead of a raid against bin Laden, while the meme "You can't convince conspiracy theorists at all, regardless what proof you offer" is hammered at us. But: They show no proof at all, besides "announcement proofs" of ISI or CIA sayings. No body, no DNA test, no video, no photo, just he said/they said. And many errors in the ever changing official account.

It's a trap. A trap for all of us to fight against another instead of fighting for truth, to call them for that, that we will be indeed convinced by proof, if there is any. But the problem is: For the whole Al-Quida, Bin Laden did 9/11, there IS NONE. They get away with it. Do you see the pattern?

They even convinced you. And many other good persons, too. How is that?

I was more or less convinced

in February that Bin Laden was alive. I assume you know the post on Truth Action I linked to, dated Feb 2011. Anyone could have figured it out using cold logic. As for that birth certificate PDF, I did inspect it, and it looks to me like anything but a fake. Besides an expert from Adobe has already said so anyway, on Fox News no less. So why the layers? I can assure you no layers are necessary in the PDF. The PDF ought to be a scan, or a flattened TIFF. It would contain one graphical object and that would be the image. No text. No layers (multiple image objects transparently overlaid) So either the White House IT department is horrendously incompetent (causing further confusion by not flattening the image from the scan while the professed aim was to eliminate confusion) or they are deliberately instigating conspiracy theories. Neither would surprise me. I have discovered some mild evidence for the former, too.

Yes, it's also my opinion that it could have been Sunstein's aim to get us to call each other infiltrators. Which is why I refuse to insinuate that anybody is an infiltrator or a 'shill', because (A) I know it's nonsense unless I have some solid evidence (does not include just my 'gut feeling' or mere disagreement over something) and (B) I don't want to play into the hands of the instigators of such divisiveness. There is plenty of evidence Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, but as you might imagine, I'd rather not bring it up, because my skeptical positions are difficult enough to swallow for some as it is. As you've noticed, there are some of us who are desperately trying to get the Truth Movement back on course. We are seen as pedantic and unpleasant, yet the fact of the matter is, none of us have the stomach to tolerate any more abuse and betrayal of this movement with unpredictable leaders who let us down and poorly researched theories which end up coming undone in a very painful, public manner.

It was never the case that Bin Laden had to be innocent or frozen in AJ's freezer for 9/11 to be an 'inside job' or rather, an 'outsourced job'. I am fine disagreeing with you about this. But some of us cannot take any more of these DEW/Overunity/Flyover/Voice Morphing/Earthquake machine/Remote-controlled anti-gravity ball diversions. Some of us have had it up to here. We want rock solid representation. I take a different stance than some: I do not merely reject these theories because I think they sound crazy, I reject them because I know they are false or baseless and sound crazy. And I'm quite willing to explain why. I believe that is healthy. I'm also willing to step aside when things become unhelpful. But there are several of us who feel the same way and we're not going to shut up about it anymore. It's 2011. We should all get it right. Some questions ought to be asked, even of prominent figures. We have worked for this movement too, in our own ways. We expect a certain measure of honesty and sincerity. That is all.

I totally agree

and I am with you the last two paragraphs. I share your feelings. My nerves get flabbergested everytime I see another distraction attempt to destroy or deflect from our most valid points.As I said yesterday on FB:

Therefore: Best infos first! Official account proving wrong! No evidence baseless conjecture! No big tent, open for all silly theories!

SnowCrash: I don't think


I don't think there is a white paper for either position of UBL involvement or uninvolvement in 9/11.

What are your thoughts of this interview with Bin Laden after 9/11, where he denied involvement.

It would seems to me that the USS Cole and embassy bombings fit the MO of his proclaimed vow to not attack civilians; in essence the interview clearly establishes that he seperated the system from the people in his targets.

From the interview with Bin Laden:

Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.

They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance.

I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.

I imagine there is plenty of skepticism about this interview, finding the original source at this point has not proven fruitful, it was regurgitated recently by Global Research/ Chussudovsky

Please let me know your thoughts.

The original source for the quotes you show are from an

interview Osama bin Laden had with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat.

Here is a link where this Sept. 29, 2001 interview is mentioned giving Ummat as the original source

Bin Laden & civilians

In February 1998, bin Laden had announced the formation of the 'World Islamic Front' and had issued a statement promising a 'Jihad against Jews and Crusaders'. In its call for the defeat of factionalism, its selective Qur'anic references, its description of the 'nations attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food', there was little that was new. The focus on the US was, however, stronger. A quotation from the sword verses of the Qur'an, 'Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them', stressed the international dimension of the cosmic struggle between good and evil that bin Laden felt was occurring.18 The statement also included a fatwa that:

"to kill Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa mosque and the Holy Mosque [in Mecca] and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

The declaration was signed by Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri in his capacity of 'emir' of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Abu Yasir Rifa'I Ahmad Taha of the Egyptian al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya and Fazlur Rahman, 'emir' of the Jihad movement in Bangladesh.

The press conference was theatrical. A party of journalists was brought from Pakistan over the high passes along the border and driven in circles through the hills before reaching the camp. There, local mujahideen fighters, especially recruited and armed for the occasion, put on a noisy display of firing. 19 Bin Laden sat flanked by al-Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef and reiterated his fatwa of February. Around the same time, he gave an interview to John Miller of ABC, the American news network. He explained that:

"any American who pays taxes to his government is our target because he is helping the American war machine against the Muslim nation... Terrorizing oppressors and criminals and thieves and robbers is necessary for the safety of people and for the protection of their property."

He denied being a 'terrorist', saying: '[They have] compromised our honour and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists.' The world Islamic Front has been formed, he said, as 'a higher council to coordinate rousing the Muslim nation to carry out jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders'. Bin Laden said that 'Westerners were under the impression that [Muslims] are butchers'. History proved that this was not the case, as the peace and protection offered to Christians living under the Ottomans in 'Eastern Europe, Turkey and Albania' proved. The misapprehension was because 'the Western masses have fallen under the effect of the Jewish media', bin Laden said, emphasizing once again his interest in modern communications, 'who do not broadcast on Muslims except that we butcher, and without showing that the number of us who were butchered it is the biggest number'. 'It is our duty to lead people to light,' bin Laden said and promised news of a major action soon.

— Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, pg. 175, 176

IMO, Jason is a bit too deferential to anti-Al Qaeda sentiment, resulting in some confirmation bias; Bin Laden has also protested against terrorist attack plans which were, in his view, too gruesome and involved too much indiscriminate killing. IIRC, this was revealed by the documentation found during the raid.

Hmmm.So here ia an American


So here is an American author's perpective, including this fatwa "signed by Bin Laden...", in his book. I imagine it was sourced.

And there is the interview with Bin Laden in which he denies the 9/11 attacks and declares himiself against the system and not* the people.

I guess we are left to wonder, however by your own methods would you not choose the Bin Laden interview as more evidenciary than Jason Burke's analysis and data from many different sources?

*Edit: added "not"


I get the impression you didn't want your question answered at all? Am I right and did I just sit here typing all this for naught?

Are you really unaware that Burke is citing public annoucements by Bin Laden himself? Never heard a leader lie or give contradictory statements before? (Obama)

To be clear, I asked not a

To be clear, I asked not a question, but was hoping to hear thoughts.

I provided an article where Bin Laden denied his 9/11 involvement and discussed attacking the "system" not the people.

To further clarify, I also added that I don't think there is a white paper for either position on his involvement in 9/11, or uninvolvement.

You provided an analysis from Jason Burke, which provides contradictory statements to those made by Bin Laden in the Ummat interview.

I did not know those were public announcements by Bin Laden that he cited. I have not read the book, and I don't have the citations for these statements.

I am not saying that to question or mock you, I am just saying we have 2 very different statements here.

Hmm. Yes, very much like many of our own leaders.

I have this for you

You can see Osama saying it to Miller with his own lips. One can buy the documentary, you could arrange for an Arabic speaking friend to provide an independent translation. Maybe the translation was 'altered', who knows.


There's actually something quite hilarious about an ABC reporter 'visiting' Bin Laden, and upon arrival of Bin Laden:

* Fireworks are shot up in the air
* Large scale celebratory gunfire lighting up the sky as if we're looking at operation Desert Storm
* Lots of unnecessary fanfare

But no, the CIA couldn't catch Bin Laden (Oswald) before 9/11... they didn't know where he was... LOL!!

Good idea

with all the fakes Intelcenter, SITE and Judith Miller in it:


Yet, see Bin Laden say it to your face in the mean time. So I think I've made my point nonetheless.

I know this video all along

I wrote a book about John O'Neills story in case you don't know. One of his personal friends, Chris Isham, worked for ABC like John Miller and did help him to view the uncut interview with Osama bin Laden.

You know the video

Okay... what's your point? Is it real or not?

The 1998 bin Laden / John Miller interview is genuine

the real Osama bin Laden, the right translation. Though no way in the position to issue a fatwa, because he was in the construction engineering field and no spiritual leader, he said these words. I'm still uncertain if he played a role all along or was duped by to him unknown handlers. But that's not the point. It's no indication of evidence he did carry out 9/11. Neither/Nor. As Loren Jenkins said 1998 in Salon, if he is the mastermind, where is the proof? Oh, and the inside job evidence won't go away if he was indeed the mastermind of terror. There are three independent sources saying that the aim was to hijack a plane to free the blink (CIA) sheik. (deflector "Max", Mossaoui, Condoleezza Rice) If I nead patsies, I would take ones already in for terror plans. Four other researchers just saw "Lone Gunmen- Pilot" with me last sunday. There is exactly such scenario involved, and that's only for tv.

The discussion about

the Miller video wasn't about Bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11, it was about Bin Laden targeting civilians as well as military.

As for the Lone Gunmen, I've got the whole season. About this:

"Oh, and the inside job evidence won't go away if he was indeed the mastermind of terror."

That's ultimately what I'm getting at here.


Why are you asking if Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 in the Miller video in 1998? (??) Wasn't it obvious that wasn't what this particular subdiscussion was about? Why did you bring it up, if not to construct a strawman?

I don't understand this either:

"As Loren Jenkins said 1998 in Salon, if he is the mastermind, where is the proof?"

In 1998?

1998 was the watershed year

when his role was set up. With or without his knowledge, it doesn't matter. The indictment of the embassy bombing follows only after this:

Now Loren Jenkins did ask some ligitimate questions didn't she? I think these questions are still valid and not answered yet.

You have to admit

the paying taxes part is true.

You shouln't make the statement that there is plenty of evidence

bin Laden was involved in 911 unless you are prepared to show it.

I agree, and I hope I made

I agree, and I hope I made that clear.

It dawned on me that our "Oswald" was recently "Jack Ruby'ed"

I don't believe

the tapes are fake, Tony.

And if they're not fake, then some of them clearly implicate Bin Laden. But to condense a complex and multi-faceted analysis into a 911blogger comment is a bit much.

Have you seen "Knowledge is for Acting Upon: Knights of the Manhattan Raid", Tony? (Excuse me for being cynical, but I know the Mossad handwave will probably be cropping up in short order)

This is all I'm prepared to say though. Enough acrimony.

The tapes are not evidence of bin Laden's involvement

in the 911 attacks according to the FBI and they did do authentication studies.

There are apparently numerous audio and video splices in every tape from what I have read.

What did you read?


Because I have read differently. Audio and video splices, BTW, are evidence of 'editing'... gosh do you think As-Sahab might edit the videos they put out?

The objective is to determine whether or not the Bin Laden heard (or seen) in the tapes, sometimes referencing current events, is a fake man, an illusion, not if a tape contains 'edits'. (I've produced and edited audio since 1996.)

Maybe here?

Or not fake, but false translated?

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the "confession" video was not only inaccurate, but even "manipulative".

Mistranslated OBL video - Germany’s Channel One investigates

On 20 December 2001, German TV channel “Das Erste” broadcast its analysis of the White House’s translation of the OBL video that George Bush has called a “confession of guilt”. On the show “Monitor”, two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation not only to be inaccurate, but “manipulative”.

Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, one of the translators, states, “I have carefully examined the Pentagon’s translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic.”

Whereas the White House would have us believe that OBL admits that “We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy…”, translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: “‘In advance’ is not said. The translation is wrong. At least when we look at the original Arabic, and there are no misunderstandings to allow us to read it into the original.”

At another point, the White House translation reads: “We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day.” Dr. Murad Alami: “‘Previous’ is never said. The subsequent statement that this event would take place on that day cannot be heard in the original Arabic version.”

The White House’s version also included the sentence “we asked each of them to go to America”, but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of “they were required to go”. He also says that the sentence afterwards - “they didn’t know anything about the operation” - cannot be understood.

You can't blame DRG for just reporting it. ;-)

I'm not so sure about that

Instead of cherrypicking, consider the entire tape.

Mike Williams is pretty extensive here:

Do you have a rebuttal? I realize that since this is an evil 'debunker' site, no-one will read it, though.

I have my own head

the video is no confession. In no thinkable way. My guess: There are two people talking about the 9/11 attacks. They may feel joy, they think, the US got what it deserves, the even may think, the alleged arabs did it themselves and are grateful for their mission, but there is no admission of guilt in it, wihout all the phony translations (link and names I'd already provide). That's it. The whole Osama did it. Catapulted by the media at the moment the south tower was hit, repeated a million times.

You didn't

read it, as predicted. You have your own head, but it's stuck somewhere.

Not in a "debunkers" ass

for sure. Yeah, my mind stuck with 9/11 for 9 1/2 long years now. A lot time to read, think, think twice, check sources, read again, research myself...

I do not need any phony "debunking" page. Really, I hate them. Their agenda. I only read sometimes on their pages to de-spin their spin.

You didn't like the

anal-ysis? The problem with your "research" is exactly how you just described your own efforts. You imply you're diligent but you can't even bring yourself to read an opposing viewpoint. You hate what you see because you're afraid what the effect might be. Those who refuse to look through the telescope remain enthralled by heliocentrism.

That's not true

I read them time to time, but I have no lust to sift trough muddyed water, endless spin and so on. It's like poison. Poison falsehoods tricking your mind. But your so eloquent in english language, I suppose you can summarize the main points with your own words.

A confession, forget Pat Roberts site just a minute: A confession is a declaration of will, in case of own guilt.
Like: I, (names) did this and that, (mostly followed by a lenghty reasoning and maybe even appealing to someone ...)

Just asks simple questions, if the bin Laden 13.12.2001 video is a confession:

Who is adressed?
Who is filming? Why?
Would you expect to record a confession in form of a simple conversation, or the confessor solely in big picture, turned towards the viewer?
What is bin Laden saying? I, Osama bin Laden, are responsible for...
How was it found? When? Where? No vague infos, but a clear, established line of evidence.
Why was it not released by bin Laden?
What's the name of the person who found it? His affidavit?
Who translated it into english language with all the phony translations to imply foreknowledge and guilt?

Think about it.


I must apologize: I said "heliocentrism", where clearly I should have said "geocentrism".

Second, could you answer a question I have before I answer yours?

Is the video both fake and mistranslated? I have difficulty reconciling the two.

Fake in the sense

that it is no confession, yes. Fake, that it's not the real Osama (I recently found out his last ever real interview with Hamid Mir was the day before this "confession video" allegedly has been made), no.

Oh, I read the links to 911myths recently. It's even worser than I thought. Pure spin, pure propaganda, not even adressing the evidence why it is no evidence at all, can not, and no confession, too, and nothing about the false translations. Instead just "fake vs. false makes no sense", so, you get it, it makes no sense, but that doesn't mean it's not faulty translated, this would be false reasoning. Don't fall for it because a "debunker" said so.


You're saying you agree with 911myths that it's the real Osama, yet it's simultaneously "pure spin", "pure propaganda" and "not addressing the evidence".

Then you caution me not "to fall for it".

Thank you, I won't.

Have no fear..

Click the link and better your arguments people.

The analysis of the Bin Laden videos is extensive as Snow mentioned, worth a visit by anyone.


That is obviously an extensive analysis and I can't, and wouldn't, want to argue any of those points or offer any counterpoints on it here and now. That is not to say that I even could, in a constructive way.

I can't

be sure "Mike Williams" is who he says he is, and I can't tell why he's constantly referring to himself as "we", but when you read a page like that, you're supposed to fetch his sources and double-check his info, because then you know what you're up against. If you think his arguments are convincing, you may even adopt them.

In another page, Mike goes out of his way to deny there was unusual trading activity leading up to 9/11. Which is why he is a 'debunker' and I'm not; the facts don't agree with Mike Williams, and yet he denies them all the same. That's what the traditional description of a 'debunker' is (for me at least)...

But.. this analysis makes very clear that claiming these tapes were fake on the basis of the arguments we've been given so far is a mistake.

I'll let you in on a little secret though: Al Qaeda agrees with us that the United States wanted to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. However, I believe Al Qaeda woefully underestimated the degree to which they were being toyed with.

David Frum said that all that Afghanistan had to offer the US was "rocks... and more rocks" .. but I disagree.

I wonder if Frum has

I wonder if Frum has rethought that sentiment?


It was a fairly

recent statement, in a debate with Glenn Greenwald... so the answer is.. no. But what would you expect from a lying neocon like David Frum?

The FBI doesn't accept the tapes as proof of involvement

so if all you can put forth as your evidence of his involvement, then it would seem there is a serious problem with your argument.

Tony,I am with you. You know


I am with you. You know me as Brian Romanoff, at AE911Truth; V-Team Leader.

The FBI has also not used our evidence as proof of demolitions, so your good point will only hold up for so long....The FBI is, as a whole, quite incompetant apparently.

I am also waiting for them to pull a Bruce Ivans with UBL:

Wait, they already did:

Dead and Guilty.

I don't know that you can say they are incompetent out of hand,

but you could say there may be political pressure for them to go in a certain direction.

However, they at least need some semblance of a criminal act that can't be easily proven to be a frame up to do so.

I think they have had to stay away from the tapes because they are indeed frauds used to frame bin Laden and can be easily proven to be such.

The shooting of Osama bin Laden twice in the head while unarmed is such an obvious "getting rid of the patsy before he has a chance to talk in court" move that one has to be extremely naive to think otherwise, and the serious problems with the tapes should then be no surprise.

I'm sure that breaking the

I'm sure that breaking the 10-year term statute for FBI directors with Mueller during all this Bull Shit from 9/11 only helps them and hurts us.


Maybe next year.

Where is Vullich, I want to hear some more unreasonable support for Obama.(Not really)

Yes, not much different than NYC changing the term limit

statute so Bloomberg could run for a third term in 2009 and more if he chooses to.

Why is it we are seeing this only with government positions which are connected to where 911 happened and its investigation? It does make one wonder.

Reminds One Of Supreme Court Financing Ruling Too

Shortly after Ron Paul's fund raising successes in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and other big-money interests can provide unlimited funding to political candidates. Political office may someday be completely beyond the reach of those not sponsored by corporations.

Perhaps no coincidence.

Dude that was mean. My

Dude that was mean. My support for Obama isn't unreasonable. As for me I'm totally a reasonable person by any rational standard.

Vullich,You are right and I


You are right and I am sorry.

I knew that I shouldn't have said that, my bad.

Sorry to go there.

Romanoff, V-Team Leader

That sounds rather intimidating. Do you drop your enemies into a pool of piranhas?

I hope I never piss off the V-Team. ;-)

No, But I have discussed


But I have discussed Obama before with Vullich, lightly.

And I have apologized to him for my childish comment.

No problem.

I am not here representing AE, either.

I voted you up for the

I voted you up for the ;-)


Lets all get back to work!

That is self-evident but worth repeating

A confession, endorsement or whatever is never enough evidence to show that someone was involved in a crime. (duh)

(Besides, BL first denied involvement in two interviews. If mere "confessions" mattered, so should denials.)

Bin Laden raid a "hoax" say residents

I'll take the word of the locals over the psywarriors at the Pentagon any day.

I agree that it is unwise to yell "hoax" from the rooftops before all the evidence or pseudo-evidence is in, but I also think people are right to be skeptical. Frankly, the official story just doesn't make a lot of sense (to the extent that there IS an official story -- it seems to be changing by the minute).

The most important thing to remember is that there's no evidence linking Bin Laden to 911 anyway.


but you apparently believe the psywarriors at CCTV ;-)

"This station is one of the official outlets of the Chinese government, and reports directly to high-level officials in the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China (CPC)"

"The network's principal directors and other officers are appointed by the State, and so are the top officials at local conventional television stations in mainland China; nearly all of them are restricted to broadcasting within their own province or municipality. Editorial independence is subject to government policy considerations, and as a result, it has been charged with being "propaganda aimed at brainwashing the audience" in its history and news programmes in a letter written by a number of Chinese intellectuals who also called for a boycott of state media was posted on a US-based website and has circulated through Chinese websites.[11][12]"

Next question, of course, is the credibility of Wikipedia and its sources. It goes on and on.

I agree the official story is ever changing and that it makes no sense in some respects, but I believe that is because they're trying to cover up an act of murder designed to prevent a trial.

A local guy, seething with hatred, saying he never saw Bin Laden, who obviously had to ensure no-one saw him at all, isn't a very convincing argument, IMO. I think the opinion of Muhammad Imran, the 'Taliban expert' cited in the video is reasonable.

And suppose Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, I don't see how that exculpates any of the other parties suspected of involvement. It seems to be a recurring theme in the 'debunker' camp that if you've found one, you've found them all, and only if they don't implicate state actors, the US included. Sounds a whole lot like "We didn't find any evidence linking insider trading to Al Qaeda"

Notice how CCTV doesn't ask if Pakistan and the ISI have anything to answer for..


but you apparently believe the psywarriors at CCTV ;-)

I didn’t say that. I said that I was more inclined to trust the locals. The question of which propaganda network is more reliable on this particular issue – CCTV or CNN – is an interesting one. China has its own interests in Pakistan so is obviously not an impartial source. China wishes to retain stability, America wishes to foment instability.

It’s also worth noting that the only heads of state that have spoken out about 911 are “enemy” or “competitor” nations – eg Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. An interesting historical precedent is the case of Lee Harvey Oswald. Literally hours after JFK’s assassination, the Soviet Union was blaming elements of the American government. There is actually footage of Walter Cronkite acting outraged at the suggestion while reporting live. You can see it in “Evidence of Revision”.

A local guy, seething with hatred, saying he never saw Bin Laden, who obviously had to ensure no-one saw him at all, isn't a very convincing argument, IMO. I think the opinion of Muhammad Imran, the 'Taliban expert' cited in the video is reasonable.

It is not made clear whether the “Taliban expert” was a local; nor did I see people “seething with rage”, though such rage would certainly be justified. I saw various neighbors living in a close-knit community who have long suffered American dirty tricks and violence, reacting with skepticism to a rather implausible narrative.

“Notice how CCTV doesn't ask if Pakistan and the ISI have anything to answer for..”

Pakistan is a US client state, though that status is in flux. The United States backed Pakistan during the Cold War because India was relatively neutral, even friendly, with the USSR. Over time this has changed. In many wars the war on Pakistan can be viewed as a proxy war between China and the United States.

Pakistan, China to hold joint military exercises

Pakistan and China will hold two joint military exercises in 2011, a Pakistani senior military leader said Tuesday.

The two exercises, one army drill and one air force one, will be held to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Pakistan and China, said General Khalid Shameem Wynne, chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.

Obviously, America’s aggression against Pakistan has nothing to do with “international terrorism” or Bin Laden, except in so far as “Al-Qaeda” can be used as a propaganda weapon.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the ISI has “something to answer for”, any more than, say, “CSIS” (the Canadian Security Services) has something to answer for. I see more evidence of complicity by the Canadian government (via NORAD) than Pakistan, and I see no evidence that Bin Laden had anything at all to do with 911. In any case, if people want to see Pakistan “pay” for their alleged crimes they need only turn on Al-Jazeera. They are being bombed daily.

The fact that the Pakistani government is allowing their own people to be bombed by a foreign nation tells you all you need to know about who is in charge. And it ain't the ISI.

A little perspective?


By Fahad Ansari

May 15, 2011 -- American War Criminal Barack Obama has been killed by Pakistani security forces in the UK, Prime Minister Hasan Abdullah of Pakistan has said.

Obama was shot dead at a compound near Camberley, in a ground operation based on Pakistani intelligence, the first lead for which emerged last August.
Mr Abdullah said Pakistan forces took possession of the body after "a firefight".

Obama is believed to have ordered almost 200 attacks in North and South Waziristan between 2009 and 2011 in which almost 2000 people were killed, when he served as Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Obama is also believed to have ordered the continued bombardment of Afghanistan during the same period in which thousands of others were killed.

He was top of Pakistan’s "most wanted" list.

DNA tests later confirmed that Obama was dead, Pakistani officials said.

Obama was cremated at the stake after a Christian funeral on board an aircraft carrier, ISI officials said.

Announcing the success of the operation, Mr Abdulla said it was "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat the CIA".

Pakistan has put Muslims around the world on alert, warning them of the possibility of American reprisal attacks for Obama’s killing.

ISI director Mohammed Akram said America would "almost certainly" try to avenge the death of Obama.

Crowds gathered outside the Red Mosque in Islamabad, chanting "Allah Akbar" after the news broke.

Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mullah Jundullah said the operation sent a signal to the Neoconservatives in both the US and Britain.

"You cannot wait us out, you cannot defeat us, but you can make the choice to abandon the CIA and participate in a peaceful political process," she said.

More --


Well over 50% of victims of terrorist attacks (by Al Qaeda et al., mostly Sunni extremists) are Muslims.

See also:


Unlike, say, Hezbollah, I do not believe "Al-Qaeda" to be an actual organization, and I am skeptical of terrorist attacks that take place in countries like Iraq which target civilians specifically and which only seem to benefit the occupier by fomenting sectarian violence and dividing the resistance. I'm not saying there aren't fanatics who commit such atrocities, but I am always skeptical.

I think it more likely that "Al-Qaeda" is a modern variant of the “pseudo-team”: individuals who are organized to impersonate enemy forces. Lawrence Kline of the US Army War College discusses the tactic in a paper for the Revolution in Military Affairs. Citing examples from the Huk insurection in the Philippines, the Mau Mau in Kenya, the French in Indochina, and other conflicts, Kline stresses their utility in intelligence gathering.

An even more candid view is offered by a leaked counter-insurgency manual published in 2008. The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces, explains the use of pseudo teams and “doppelganger” operations, whereby individuals posing as insurgents or even specific individuals can be used to tarnish the image of the enemy. Obviously the manual does not explicitly refer to setting off bombs, but there are indeed candid admissions of such. Kermit Roosevelt during Operation Ajax, CIA whistleblower Philip Agee in Uruguay, and many bombings/atrocities under Gladio and Operation Phoenix.

It's not one or the other -- "organic" terrorism or false flag operation. During the Cold War you had leftist radicals carry out terrorist attacks entirely of their own volition; you also had groups like the Baader Meinhoff in Germany that were infiltrated and steered into carrying out terrorist attacks; you had terrorist attacks for which no responsibility was taken (eg in Belgium -- the "Supermarket massacres") designed to create a "strategy of tension", and you had pseudo teams carrying out bombings in the name of the left.

So it's all very complex. In Iraq, there was a period where the Shia and Sunni were uniting to fight the occupation. Then a series of sectarian bombings began. The British SAS were caught in flagrante delicto, while the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque was almost certainly a false flag operation. Who would call their organization "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" when the term itself was concocted by some guy at the Pentagon?

The various bombings attributed to Al-Qaeda always seem to have some sort of intelligence link, whether MI6, CIA or even FBI. This fact alone is enough to cast suspicion on the entire enterprise.

Anyway, regarding Bin Laden, I agree with you that it is not prudent to simply assume it was a hoax, even with the destruction of evidence, staged photo ops, implausible (and ever changing) accounts, fortuitous timing (election campaign time!) and the highly dubious history of Bin Laden himself. By the same token, I don't think it prudent to simply assume the US government is telling the truth (if they were, the event would be remarkable in more ways than one). I lean towards the view that Bin Laden died many years ago, for reasons I've stated many times, but I have no problem changing my mind in light of new evidence. I did so re the Pentagon, largely due to your own posts.

One of the problems is that when you have a 50 billion dollar a year "black budget" it is not all that difficult to fabricate evidence and pay or coerce people to say one thing or another. It happens all the time in minor legal trials; it must also happen when dealing with events of major geopolitical import. This is the problem -- we end up pouring over minutiae and lose site of the over-arching issues.

In his “comments on the society of the spectacle”, Guy Debord wrote:

"At the moment when almost every aspect of international political life and a growing number of those aspects that count in internal politics are conducted and displayed in the style of the secret services, with decoys, disinformation and double explanations (one might conceal another, or may only seem to), the spectacle confines itself to making known a wearisome world of obligatory incomprehensibility, a boring series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels."

It is perhaps for this reason that we should remind ourselves that Bin Laden could not have organized war games on 911, nor imploded B7. In many ways, Bin Laden himself is just one giant distraction.


Sorry for the automatic Audio for the CCTV report. I copied and pasted the embed and that's what I got.



Reasonable And Insightful Comment

As well it is likely that under all scenarios only in suicide would OBL have died as in any such raid capture would have been the top priority..

The official story that he was shot flat out should raise red flags around his presence or not in the compound at that time.

chilled to the bone.

the fact is, the rat everyone smells REALLY STINKS.
My two cents sais it does not matter whether it was BIN Laden alive or dead or not. The point is that SOME one named Bin Laden, by administrative decree, lived there, and died there.
In the games ROVE talks about; the 'empire creating realities' the rest of us chatter about while they create newer ones etc., - in that paradigm, OBL is DEAD. Finito. Obama sais so. So it is. That much is scripted and certain. It is official. Who or what got dumped fresh or on ice into the sea no longer really matters to the creation of the myth/reality.

point is, given the official narrative, Bin Laden, whoever he actually was, lived in a particular place so close to a military establishment, that it had to be at behest of ISI. That is the intention or insinuation or the fact. For people to understand. whoever wrote the story, had him there. And if ISI knew then so did CIA. Which indicates OBL, alive or dead, was kept alive in mediamind until he was required dead. That OBL was held somehow in suspended animation like a sacrificial lamb waiting the need to kill him for presentation to the world as part of the official 911 conspiracy THEORY. Some kind of salve or stopper on the momentum truth activism had reached. Or psychology that allowed the 10th anniversary to need this reiteration of OBL myth and 911 to 'come together' in the minds of the population? I dunno. but certain in my mind, no one was EVER going to stand in open habeas corpus court under oath saying he was Osama Bin Laden. Nor KSM for that matter. Which is why the Oswald analogy is a very good one, because that is what is happening here. Only ten years apart and not the 10 or so hours lee oswald got before they popped his cork.
Osama got nearly ten years before "justice"[sic] caught up with him.. And he is the face of 911 to mainstream. And all that ahootin and hollerin outside white house means the trickery worked, case closed, at least so far as the mob is concerned..

Question is, Does the reported death concentrate the attention forward to re-invigorate 911investigation or not? Wouldn’t the ‘rest of the world’, which must becoming fully aware of the false flag nature of OBL death and 911, be getting a little tired of backing US unilateralism built on this nanothermite DUST pile narrative?

The Twin Towers of the WTC

DID. NOT. "COLLAPSE". That's not what happened.

I am not Winston Smith in the novel 1984.

All anyone needs to do is to observe, and time the destruction, simple as that.

Everything else is obfuscation either willfully, or unwittingly perpetrated, so as to either uphold the official story MYTH, or, to confuse and obscure the truth in a blizzard of speculation and hypothesis where you cannot even see the road ahead..

I agree with you that even

I agree with you that even use of the term "collapse" is subtle semantic deception. Jim Hoffman has written on this a little and I mostly agree with his analysis. The idea is that "collapse" by definition implies a thing "giving way" or falling under its own weight. Think of paradigms of physical collapses, a man collapses when he is either too weak or physically compromised to stand, a house of cards collapses when the balance is upset. A building collapse seems to connote a building that falls by giving way somehow, like from weakening as the official story falsely alleges. A better term that I have begun to use is "destruction" it's something that doesn't carry the same connotation of falling under its own weight, and it subtly implies outside control of the mechanism of destruction. Controlled demolition is technically accurate and in truth circles I use it for convenience sake, but in a way its less than ideal because it carries with it an air of special science that is intimidating to many people. By the way I think we can make an obvious case for CD without even talking about the thermite/dust. I'm starting to think that somewhere down the line we are gonna have a problem with some of those findings...

But if it's simple and straightforward, and

self evident, and provable, which it is - that the buildings were blown up from the top down and did not "collapse", what then are the historical implications of such a self evident truth, and why are we not hammering away with unrelenting persistence regarding this very issue with a focus aimed squarely at the destruction of the twin towers? Because they were hit by planes as the apparent causal mechanism, I guess that's the only reason - how lame..

Future citizens of the world and of the USA, when looking back on the event in hindsight, they will wonder just WTF everyone was thinking to assume such a thing when the truth is so self evident, that the buildings could only have been destroyed as they were, by the use of explosives.

The assumption is so absurdly simplistic (that the buildings "collapsed) and the self evident truth that they did not, but were blown up, so plainly obvious (3 seconds difference from absolute free fall in nothing but air), how can this not be our primary focus in getting the truth out about this self evident reality..?

What the hell..? This makes no sense.

Even the exclusive focus on building 7, while ignoring what happened to the twin towers, simply because that building wasn't hit by a plane, doesn't make sense to me, as if we too are somehow supporting and upholding the official story myth as to the cause of the destruction of the twin towers.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth therefore holds the key to this truth movement, as nothing more or less than the movement of the truth itself, because they are committed to exploring the causal mechanism of destruction for all THREE high rise buildings including the Twin Towers, who's destruction forms the very core of the entire 9/11 myth as a global psy-op upheld by public perception in the words of Zelikow "even as the experiencing generation passes away"..

Big time FAIL for our movement, not to make the plainly obvious, plainly obvious..


"...thermite/dust. I'm starting to think that somewhere down the line we are gonna have a problem with some of those findings..."

Agree. I have a long time friend who is a full professor of Chemistry at a major university and after reviewing the paper he felt the presentation and conclusions were a stretch. At this point I only think/refer to the findings of that paper as 'interesting', a side note... and not needed. The CD case has other solid and substantial evidence to support it.


Noam's on a roll...