Support 911Blogger


Al-Qaida calls on Ahmadinejad to end 9/11 conspiracy theories

By Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk. Wednesday 28 September 2011

Terrorist organisation's magazine reportedly says it is 'ridiculous' for Iran's president to blame the attacks on the US government
Excerpts: Al-Qaida has sent a message to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking him to stop spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks. Iranian media on Wednesday reported quotes from what appears to be an article published in the latest issue of the al-Qaida English language magazine, Inspire, which described Ahmadinejad's remarks over the 11 September attacks as "ridiculous".

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al-Qaida was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government," the article said, according to Iranian media. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

Ahmadinejad said in New York that the "mysterious September 11 incident" had been used as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. He had also previously expressed scepticism at the US version of events.

WTF?

Still have doubts that Al Qaeda is Al CIAda?

The Mujahideen

Were funded and trained by the CIA, the ISI and GIP. Al Qaeda was infiltrated via Ali Mohamed. There is a difference. Osama Bin Laden was aware of the CIA's history in Afghanistan and he in fact later tried to downplay the CIA's role in assisting the Mujahideen in defeating the Russians. I'm sure you can imagine it's an embarrassment when the Great Satan used to be your friend, sponsor, coach and ally. Western powers have used and abused terrorists for their own purposes for decades, at times when the interests of both converged. Many people don't understand the true structure of Al Qaeda either: a venture capitalist-type operation that funds and provides, but requires an influx of ideas and 'inventors', inventors meaning, for example, enterprising bomb makers, who need funds for an attack.

I take this news report exactly for what it is: as evidence that no hijacker theory is false. The converse would be to conclude without evidence that this news report is a fabrication, in fact, even take this news report which debunks no hijacker theory as evidence of the contrary. The mental gymnastics at work here are, as usual, amazing. I'm sorry, but I think this is another embarrassment to the Truth Movement which could have been prevented. Nothing UBLU did is debunked by this. CIA agents pretending to be kamikaze hijackers, no hijackers on the planes, hijackers alive, voice morphing, passengers living new identities on tropical islands... yes... that is debunked by this.

If anybody wishes to contest this news report as a fabrication, the proper thing to do is to provide direct evidence that it is such. That's the way the scientific, historiographic and journalistic method work.

This still applies:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-26/false-dilemma-fallacy

More than ever.

I think there are legitimate

I think there are legitimate reasons to *question* the authenticity of the al-Qaida magazine (see below) without having to "scientifically" prove it as a fabrication first. Somewhat similarly, when a talking head is obviously spewing propaganda, we don't need to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal to be able to legitimately conclude that it is propaganda.

Actually

Given the enormous body of evidence that hijackers did in fact exist, the onus is on you, and yes, you would have to publish a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal. Publishing about controlled demolition, however, does not refute the existence of hijackers. The perceived mutual exclusivity is a false dilemma. We know from phone calls from the planes what happened. Cutting pilots and flight attendant's throats and then killing yourself inside a plane along with the passengers does not constitute 'no hijacker' evidence, as I'm sure you understand. It's imperative that this movement remains dedicated to fact and rationality. The much touted 'voice morphing' theories are a complete fiasco. The video in which Bin Laden discusses 9/11 in the presence of Suleiman Abu Gaith, Khaled al-Harbi, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is evidence. The phone calls are evidence. The cockpit voice recorder of UA 93 constitutes evidence. The radio transmissions from the planes constitute evidence, the DNA material found at the crime scenes constitute evidence. The financial trails, the support network, the flight lessons, the martyr videos, letters sent by hijackers to family, diaries, training manuals, it all supports the obvious.

So no, you can't legitimately conclude this is propaganda. You can however, legitimately conclude Ahmedinejad's opportunistic exploitation of the 9/11 Truth Movement is propaganda. Al Qaeda seems to agree. It still seems difficult for many to understand that it does not have to be EITHER the United States Government OR Al Qaeda, in establishing responsibility for 9/11.

Lecture unwarranted

I have never said that there were no hijackers, etc., so *I* don't need to write a peer-reviewed paper about their non-existence, thank you.

But there are legitimage grounds for being skeptical of such Al-Qaida statements, considering the historical connections, etc. And if 9/11 was something else than what we've been told, I think there are valid reasons to be skeptical about such lesser things, too.

Sorry

But you said 'we',. not 'I'.

"we don't need to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal to be able to legitimately conclude that it is propaganda."

You were suggesting this report is propaganda, didn't you? Could you elaborate? How is it propaganda? It is US propaganda? What consequences would this report being propaganda have in relation to involvement of hijackers? Who made this propaganda? What is your basis for calling it propaganda?

I don't have time for this

It may or may not be propaganda. I don't know. I see no reason not to think it could be, considering all the lies I've learned about in recent years.

Exactly

"Publishing about controlled demolition, however, does not refute the existence of hijackers. The perceived mutual exclusivity is a false dilemma. We know from phone calls from the planes what happened."

"So no, you can't legitimately conclude this is propaganda. You can however, legitimately conclude Ahmedinejad's opportunistic exploitation of the 9/11 Truth Movement is propaganda. Al Qaeda seems to agree. It still seems difficult for many to understand that it does not have to be EITHER the United States Government OR Al Qaeda, in establishing responsibility for 9/11."

Awesome comments. Do they just fly over some peoples heads? Learning about the false dilemma fallacy has changed a lot for me personally. It's on of the most common ones around..

Idiotic

I guess I missed the fake hijackers part of this . . .

That AQ would criticize the CTs seems pretty transparently to be propaganda. We don't hear about the "AQ position" on the Obama Admin or their position on the war in Iraq or their positions on anything . . . but suddenly its headline news that they are objecting to the CTs? Give me a break.

And the supposedly distributed network of cells has a "magazine"? I wonder who advertises in there. Does it include "God is Great?" everywhere too?

For all we know one of the "cells" doesn't know what's going on but just gets tweets and wouldn't you know, they buy the official story!

This is like Anonymous coming out with a "magazine" that criticizes the Wall Street Protestors.

Who cares? It's probably a fake anyway. The Right-wing official story defenders are the ones most excited by this, which defines it as meaningless.

Personally

I believe the constant and tired refrain that "everything must be fake because we think so" is damaging to 9/11 research. You don't think English speaking Islamic militants can create advanced propaganda? This is 2011. They have videographers, website administrators, crypto-experts, martial arts teachers, doctors, engineers (Awlaki was one, KSM was one, OBL was one), extremely skilled bomb makers, specialists in guerrilla warfare, religious scholars, a complex web of financial sponsors, weapon suppliers, everything under the sun.

Yet, some elements, indeed many elements of this movement imply these men are "apes" from "caves" (BMAC) and therefore incapable of achieving anything us "übermenschen" from the "civilized" West can achieve. It's a complete crock, and I'm ashamed of being even marginally associated with such beliefs.

You better believe they can create a professional looking magazine. They're not infallible though, and perhaps this latest release helped JSOC track them down. I looked at the PDF file: the file alteration time stamps inside the PDF match the time zone for the Arabian Peninsula. (Work seems to have been started at 9/10) Al Qaeda isn't the only entity whose digital productions leak info; I found such leaks in White House material (!) as well.

It's not about that

>>You better believe they can create a professional looking magazine.

Whether it's real or fake, we reject it.

The hijackers were real, but the magazine is fake.

We can't claim to know as a scientific fact that it's fake, but it might as well be -- just like Vogue can't claim to represent the Wall St protestors, and to read Vogue and say it represents "America", is a false claim. So, the magazine is speaking for we-don't-know-who, and it's likely that AQ is a diverse group, many of whom are just as capable of understanding the B7 videos as we are.

Vogue and Inspire are both propaganda.

And the hijackers are real.

Okay

"The hijackers were real, but the magazine is fake."

I can live with that. Speculation about the magazine won't nearly do the movement as much damage as no hijacker theories have, and will.

The Accused Were Real - Reasonable Doubt They Were Hijackers

The official 9/11 tale is a mostly unproven allegation. There is little reason to have confidence in the story.

Most like yet another bogus, unsourced, fabricated report...

Responsible news reports are multiple sourced. This report, quoting the contents of an alleged "al Qaeda" website, in which no URL is published (!!!!!) is not properly sourced, and hardly qualifies as real, reliable reporting... by a long shot. The URLs for any alleged website belonging to "al Qaeda" are unknown, have never been quoted in the media. More than likely, these websites do not even exist, and never have. "Al Qaeda", either what has been sold to the US/world public via the US government, or what it is in reality, is also not an honest, reliable, or verifiable source.

Ever since 9/11, there have been a plethora of stories, reports and "warnings of imminent attacks", all hearsay material, none of which have ever been confirmed as genuine, or turned out to be true, or real, published in the mainstream media regarding material allegedly released by "al Qaeda" via "their websites" and other media outlets controlled and/or owned by this alleged organization. This latest one talks about "al Qaeda's" English language online magazine,"Inspire". For $%^'s sake... gimme a break!

Has anyone ever provided a valid link to any of these alleged websites, and for any alleged al Qaeda (+ related) websites that are in Arabic, a reliable (ie not garbage and hearsay spewed out courtesy of MEMRI)? The answer is a big fat NO! The public, as usual, is being requested to believe in phoney or fabricated reports of "al Qaeda", or fearmongering about imminent "al Qaeda" operations generated by war-industry hacks such as SITE etc.

This latest piece of propaganda and crap should be taken with a huge pinch of virtual salt. Enough already!

All I see

In this comment is frustrated disbelief, not evidence.

Links

bloggulator said....."Has anyone ever provided a valid link to any of these alleged websites, and for any alleged al Qaeda (+ related) websites that are in Arabic, a reliable (ie not garbage and hearsay spewed out courtesy of MEMRI)? The answer is a big fat NO!"

www.alneda.com
www.jehad.net
www.azzam.com

These were all supposed to be al qaeda websites.

As an example - Here is one of them archived from Jan 2002....

http://web.archive.org/web/20020129223155/http://alneda.com/

Another archive.....

http://web.archive.org/web/20021003073728/http://www.jehad.net/3.htm

Anyone can make a website though. Including intelligence organizations and terror groups.

Show "Link" by SnowCrash

Not credible enough, sorry

If aljahad.com is "an al Qaeda website", in which real terrorists/terrorist sympathizers post messages on the web, where their IP addresses are very easily traceable by US and international authorities, then someone is either not doing their work, or this whole al Qaeda business is not what is being sold to us, or the act of harboring, aiding and abetting international terrorism is not taken as seriously by the authorities as the authorities would prefer us to believe.

The domain aljahad.com is hosted by Nocster.com, its IP Address: is: 184.82.129.150, and whoever updates the site... (a member of "al Qaeda"?!!), or at least someone "sympathetic to the cause", if this is genuine.. would obviously have to provide a billing address, and other traceable forms of ID. Any arrests yet?

Nocster is a private company HQ'd in Scranton, PA, Los Angeles CA and Manchester UK. www.aljahad.com was last updated September 29, 2011. I believe that is today. Any Nocster.net corporate officials been questioned yet over hosting a website which "is affiliated with" al Qaeda:"?

I smell bogus. AGAIN.

IP Address

That IP address is in Scranton P.A.

Arrests

bloggulator said...."The domain aljahad.com is hosted by Nocster.com, its IP Address: is: 184.82.129.150, and whoever updates the site... (a member of "al Qaeda"?!!), or at least someone "sympathetic to the cause", if this is genuine.. would obviously have to provide a billing address, and other traceable forms of ID. Any arrests yet?"

Can you point out what is illegal on this site...
www.aljahad.com

And what they should be arrested for and how long do you think they should be in prison?

Do you think you should also be arrested for linking to it, or just the web site registrant?

Are you calling for the arrest of anyone posting on that website or just the owner? If someone posts a message advocating violence on 911blogger should Justin go to prison? Or should the site be shut down?

Also just wondering if you think Afghanistan is real? Do you think the ISI ever helped run "training camps" there? Do you believe in Chechnya, or Kashmir, and do you believe anyone ever fought there over anything?

I think these are good questions

"Inspire is an English language online magazine reported to be published by the organization Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). The use of the magazine is to increase the availiability of their message without challenges to their value system. The magazine is one of the many ways AQAP uses the internet to reach its audience. However, its message is also intended for the enemy. The magazine is a political warfare tool targeting the American and Western governments, with the intent of inspiring homegrown terrorism. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspire_%28magazine%29

If the magazine is a political warface tool intended to inspire homegrown terrorism, evidently published by the world's no 1 terrorist network, is there nothing that can be done about the magazine?

willin to bet it's bogus

.like the videos, tapes, Bin Laden assassination.

Something

...was just "done about the magazine"...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-official-us-citizen-who-edited-al-qaida-magazine-killed-with-al-awlaki-in-yemen-...

Edit:

Ron Paul shows some sanity:

The outlier was Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who condemned the Obama administration for killing an American-born al-Qaeda operative without a trial, saying the action amounted to an “assassination.”

“Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody,” Paul said after a breakfast at St. Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Unfettered surveillance, torture as well as targeted assassinations without trials are for tyrants and brutal totalitarians.

So it's all over now

"The online magazine publishED seven issues offering articles on making crude bombs and how to fire AK-47 assault rifles."

And, as a bonus,

a smackdown of Ahmadinejad for expressing doubt over their responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Scroll down for the "Inspire"

Scroll down for the "Inspire" PDF. (Do virus scan it first)

I tried most of the dozen or so links there and they are invalid. I guess we are being protected from all those "bomb making" articles.

Nonsense

I just clicked the first link and it worked, just like the last time when I downloaded it. Do you know how to use a computer? Do you need me to mail the magazine to you?

You're right

My bad. The 6 "zshare" links, the 6 "2shared" links, and the 6 "easy-share" links do not work. It looks as if the 1 "multiupload" link and the 4 "uptotal" links do work. I didn't check far enough.

[8 minutes later, after downloading from the "multiupload" link] Yup, there it is, Issue 7, in all its glory, beginning with,

"We dedicate this special supplement to the great events of the Expeditions of Washington DC and New York, as Shaykh Usama would call it, or simply 9/11."

re. "Do you know how to use a computer?" Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.

Monkey Bars

So, you are saying that the monkey bars were fake? Say it a'int so, Joe!

Good to see the

Good to see the chain-of-intelligence communication links between the powers-that-be and their proxy terrorist spokesmen in the Middle East is still working smoothly. The Guardian notes -

"Iranian media on Wednesday reported quotes from what appears to be an article published in the latest issue of the al-Qaida English language magazine, Inspire"

And then I see Max Fisher last year wrote an article entitled "5 Reasons to Doubt Al-Qaeda Magazine's Authenticity"

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/5-reasons-to-doubt-al-qaeda-magazines-authenticity/59035/

Fisher dismisses western intelligence involvement, but I don't. I recall Peter Dale Scott once alluded to the notion that Ahmadinejad himself was a puppet of western intel. This would be logical if Ahmadinejad's repeated 9/11 comments were staged to create a nice easy target and to provide a pretext for regular UN walkouts as soon as the topic was mentioned, but I'd like to think the timing of 'Al-Qaida's' irate rebuttal of those pesky 9/11 conspiracy theories has as much to do with the other official-story-shredding evidence floating around since the recent anniversary - including AE911Truth's new documentary - as anything else. There's a 'new edition' of the Popular Mechanics debunking book up on Amazon now as well.

I'm reminded of this from the Onion:

Wow!

That's certainly a better take on 9/11 than I've ever seen in the print version of The Onion. Good to see!

it is from 2008'

.

Hey Ahmadinejad...

...you stop all this ridiculous truth nonsense! We did it, and naturally we want more attacks against our own people, more torture, more demonization of Muslims, and more of our wealth and natural resources stolen in order to benefit our enemy and their corporations.

You believe us, don't you?

Your Friend

-Al Qaida

I wonder, does Al Qaeda even know about building #7?

I don't know about the Al Qaeda magazine, who writes and publishes it, or who buys it. I know that Glamour mag does not represent myself. This could be a big spin by one or another intelligence agency, or it could also fit into a broad picture I wrote about in 2010:

http://norcaltruth.org/2010/04/28/al-qaeda-never-expected-the-towers-to-fall/

The CIA has detainees that are surprised at the towers collapse on 9/11.

Infact the world was surprised that the towers fell, not just Al Qaeda,

Ultimately al Qaeda was never in full control of the operation known as 9/11.

The concept of a building the size of WTC 1 or 2 being turned to pieces by a plane’s impact could not possibly be in the mind of a hijacker: It is not possible. Did the USS Cole sink? Our defense being another issue altogether, everyone knows there were plenty of warnings to intelligence agencies - so Al Qaeda never fooled anyone, really.

So there they are, sitting in jail cells illegally - the dupes and the duped, unknowingly grunts of a front organization, bewildered, just as all of the world was on 9/11/01, as to how the towers fell.

Osama bin Laden had no idea the U.S. would hit al-Qaeda as hard as it has since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a former bin Laden associate tells WTOP in an exclusive interview.

“I’m 100 percent sure they had no clue about what was going to happen,” says Noman Benotman, who was head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the summer of 2000.

Benotman’s assessment is backed up by a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, who was active in the fight against al-Qaeda. The officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says “several captured terrorists have said publicly that al-Qaeda never expected the towers to fall. Their goal was to frighten people and impact the U.S. economy, so they really didn’t plan for the massive response the U.S. launched.”

Yes, the official story apologists

keep refusing to tell us how Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden planted those charges in WTC 7 let alone how they could have done it in the towers.

Actually a few years ago there was what I think was a trial balloon, where there was some type of official suspicion supposedly leaked that the mafia could have allowed terrorists to plant charges in the buildings. It was on Comcast news. However, I didn't see it again.

I think the problem with it was that there would have needed to be an investigation on just how the mafia infiltrated the building security.

It might get that ridiculous...

In 10 more years we might hear officials saying how Al Qaeda planted bombs in the towers. The recent aluminum/water theory is a few steps before that though.

It is obvious the only people who expected those towers to fall were the ones who planted the explosives.

Al Qaeda was probably stunned that one let alone 19 of their official members made it as far as they did past all the firewalls.

Ask Rich Blee about it.

One account to keep in mind

I do know of an attempt not only to suggest that there was foreknowledge of the destruction of the World Trade Center, but also to link such foreknowledge with the outside job / Muslims-did-it thesis. FBI informant Randy Glass reported that back in 1999, when he was taking part in a sting operation, he was dining with some men at a restaurant in Tribeca when one of them, a Pakistani arms dealer believed to involved in aquiring weapons for Al Qaeda, pointed at the window toward the World Trade Center and said, 'Those towers are coming down!' Not, 'those towers are going to get hit again,' or 'those towers are going to be damaged,' but 'those towers are coming down!' No mention of means, mind you--nothing about hijacked airplanes in his comments--only of outcomes, though naturally with implications as to who was going to be responsible for those outcomes. Over the next couple of years, Glass attempted to relay his concerns over the WTC and its possibly being a terrorist target again, but...well, we know how things turned out.

But we also know that the towers did indeed 'come down.' And we can also be confident that that result depended on prior access to the buildings themselves. So, was Glass just fabricating what he had heard, with the effect (though presented with the appearance of helping the truth movement with more evidence of the U.S. government's having ignored prior warnings) of further solidifying the link in people's minds between Muslim terrorists, i.e., outside actors, and the outright destruction (as opposed to merely damaging) of the WTC towers? If not, and Glass was telling the truth, then we must ask of the Pakistani arms dealer whom he reportedly heard: Why was he so confidently making such a prediction about two years prior to 9/11? Surely, neither he nor his Muslim clients could have had the necessary access to the buildings to ensure the predicted result (especially not in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC bombing). But had he been in touch with anybody who conceivably either had such access themselves, or who knew people who had such access?

Good question

>>I wonder, does Al Qaeda even know about building #7?

Hilarious.

You can imagine it might undermine recruitment purposes if too many see it and start to wonder what the heck is going on.

I doubt it.

Al Qaeda has been quoted through the CIA and apparently "publicly" stated that they "did not expect the towers to fall."

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1943289&nid=778

Considering a broad majority of Americans still don't know about WTC 7, I consider it very easy to assume the same for Al Qaeda rank and file associates.

Also in Huffpo

'Ridiculous' is right, Joe. This does seem more like a spoof from "The Onion" than anything else. Comment:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/al-qaeda-ahmadinejad-end-911-theories_n_985265.html

Truthers beware - AQ out to get you!

Any attempt to expose the truth now upsetting terrorsts?

Surely if AQ did do 9/11, they would want their role confirmed since it would generate the publicity to add to their cause.

Americans should fight terrorists...

...doing whatever we can do to irritate them.
Evidently, Al Qaida is rather miffed with the President of Iran asking questions about 9/11.
Accordingly, the following slogan or bumper sticker may now be appropriate:

Irritate Al Qaida
Investigate 9/11

I think it's rather unfortunate

...that no hijacker theories are so popular among controlled demolition researchers. Here's another bumper sticker:

Help The 9/11 Cover Up
Promote Voice Morphing
Say No Plane Hit The Pentagon
Claim The Hijackers Are Alive

And so on, and so forth. I'm sure these slogans are a real winner among the people we are protecting by not focusing on the real facts.

There aren't many of us left here on 911blogger who are skeptical of no hijacker theories. They all left in frustration, or fear the wrath of fellow truthers when they say something about it. I won't be silent though. I still hope it's possible to get this movement back on track, so that embarrassments like these become a rarity.

WHAT?

Snowcrash,

It sucks that people don't understand what and why you are saying what you say.

I hear you loud and clear, maybe these folks will understand key words like "compartmentalization"?

I really see people becoming victims of paranoia and ill research by saying Al Qaeda is all CIA and yada yada. That is a gross over-simplification at best, but probably not even that. I may be wrong, but no-one is providing any white-paper that says this to be the case. No, Brezinski handing a gun to a man that looks less like Bin Laden than who was in Bin Laden's "confession video" does not count.

10 years later and people's arguements are becoming way too generalized, in my opinion. (Danger)

Thats why I am looking forward to seeing Russ Baker tonight. True investigative journalism, not the hyper-accusations readily available here on Blogger.

Thanks for putting up with the frustrations, I find learning more to be a valuable experiance.

Everyone should take notice to a recent finishing sentence by Washingtons Blog regarding the Richard Clarke allegations, and think of where SnowCrash and others are coming from:

In other words, even if the hijackers were patsies or agents of rogue elements within the CIA and/or other governmental agencies, the FBI could have stopped them if the information had not been blocked by the CIA.

So instead of being irreconcilable, they might be providing two different pieces to the same puzzle.

I still love you all, but I just want to move further with actual evidence and research.

To Snowcrash:

I wasn't aware that questioning the reality of al Qaeda and its ability to carry out such an operation, or at the very least how it may have been used as a scapegoat, automatically meant that there were no hijackers on the flights. As I believe Nor Cal is pointing out (not sure if I'm reading sarcasm there or not) these are not mutually exclusive positions.

I fully support your call to "stick with the facts" but I question how you are able to determine what you call "fact" from news report.

jnelson

I think the the general sentiment here is that this news report is fake, because the hijacks didn't actually happen, Al Qaeda does not exist and/or is an exclusively CIA-run organization (mutually exclusive too, I think), Bin Laden 'denied responsibility' (So did Joran van der Sloot), the hijackers were trained at military bases (not true), they ate pork, drank, snorted coke, lusted for strippers, (all of which does not preclude entrance into paradise since shedding blood in martyrdom operation trumps all else) etc. etc.

If the sentiment is that there were some things the hijackers couldn't have accomplished, yeah, well, sure! But that doesn't require denying the authenticity of this news report, does it? That would indicate complete disbelief of any hijacker involvement, wouldn't it?

I mean, just have a scroll through the thread and you see what I'm getting at...

Not a proved "fake", but how likely or meaningful?

Of course it's not impossible that there may be "Al Qaeda" supporters who believe that "Al Qaeda" was responsible for 9/11, so that the article we're discussing could be genuine in a way. But there are many reasons to believe that AQ is largely, if perhaps not exclusively as of today due to the years of "blowback" producing influences, a CIA product, that OBL really did not take credit for 9/11, and that the suicide hijackers, if that's what they were -- perhaps they were on the planes for a different agenda -- were under other control than an independently operating Al Qaeda. Something we do know for certain is that there has been a great deal of governmental and other media distortion about all these matters in the past.

So why be so certain that this article points to anything factual about what really happened, that these people calling themselves AQ really are that, or, if they are, that they know what they are talking about?

The Milli Vanilli Scenario

Is really the same as The Planet Of The Apes Fallacy.

Only realistic domestic culprits of controlled demolition can be assessed responsibility for the attacks. It is impossible for any type of "hijacker" to be jointly responsible.

It seems strange and forced that one would insist that the "hijacker" myth is true. Remember that in "The Planet Of The Apes" movie when the apes took over the world it was'nt quite true. It was only a movie.

Also...US Tells Court bin Laden Photos Must Stay Secret

http://www.kpic.com/news/national/130668278.html

The lone comment at the end of the story says it all.

So... tell me

Who are the 'apes'? Milli Vanilli? The 9/11 hijackers?

For those who don't know: engineering degrees are/were quite common in Al Qaeda circles. And we wonder why the "not made in a cave in Afghanistan" argument is perceived as racist. Not because Al Qaeda had the technical resources to produce advanced energetic materials or have the USAF and the chain of command behave the way it did, but because of the crass, stereotypical, borderline racist analogies.

The Official Report Was The Racist Tale

You should by now understand that the casting of dark skinned muslims as the hijackers was essential to creating a blind hatred, averse to facts, to motivate whites, Christians, and Jews to accept the "eye for an eye" attacks against Iraq and Afganistan and anyone who might look a terrorist or should I say muslim. Anyone who advances the "authentic hijacker" meme may be contributing to hatred of dark complexions, not to mention the people who have these darker complexions. So be careful with some of the ideas you advance.

So yes, in this sense, the examples of demonizing and scapgoating of dark complexions are extremely apt. for analysing the truth of 9/11 So,SC, when you run out of arguments you thrash around and lash out with thin accusations.

Acting as though

terrorists don't exist and insulting people who accept Bin Laden's death (as was the comment you linked to above) HELPS THE 9/11 COVER-UP. Because you have no proof! I want some definitive evidence. Guess what? If you aid in the cover-up by rashly declaring a conspiracy THEORY you believe as FACT, you also feed the racist demonization of Muslims. Another false dilemma fallacy:

Either all Muslims are terrorists
No Muslims are terrorists

Good Muslims and all other groups being attacked by said campaigns of demonization around the world would take offense to your ignorant personal denial of any authentic hijackings. The people I know who have been experienced racism due to 9/11 are perfectly willing to acknowledge a minority group of "real-live" terrorists and are frankly willing to help isolate it. Unfortunately BMAC, your radical false dilemma perception of the world is what fuels the radicalism in the US and in the Middle East. If enforces the racism. The 2 false world views (mentioned in the above false dilemma) are radical, false, and dangerous for anyone to embrace.

So BMAC, If you want to fight the bigotry, you'll go back through your own facts and assumptions and check yourself. Also try not to use comparisons of people with a dark complexion to apes and the like.

Terrorist = Ape

In a philosophical sense because the creature is dehuminized. Face it, you have to back SC in your efforts to bolster the official narrative but in so doing perpetuate the racist screed implicit in the official report.

Face it. Innocent people were tortured to death and elsewhere in the world because of the hatred generated towards people and countries associated with the Islamic faith because of the terrorist tale of 9/11.

Good night to you Kdub.

oh dont go to bed yet

I have to back up SC to bolster the official story. That's all u have? I gave you a thoughtful response which you didn't read or think about. My warning to you of the ape comparison was just that. Since you don't seem to understand, its a very old racist tactic to equate dark complexions with apes. Not saying you meant to, just a basic PR word of advice (this seems like a weak area for u). So do you have any facts to back up your bogus theory that I am here to bolster the OCT? How about some proof? You haven't provided any for your claims. Any. Try starting with the ones I asked about, followed by how u can prove I'm here to bolster a theory. The cover up loves you BMAC. Keep reading...

Wobbly

"Planet of the Apes was just a movie", that was your argument. You brought up Milli Vanilli, a musical group which consisted of two black men and "apes" in a single context, to connote how incompetent and incapable the 9/11 hijackers were. Comparing Arabic men, as well as one African-American-German and one Caribbean-Frenchman, to apes, alluding to lack of intelligence or authenticity? A transparently racist remark, without a doubt.

Now, you try to turn it around, saying anybody who speaks the truth about 9/11 is contributing to racial hatred in general. This is the fallacy of appeal to consequences. The consequences a logical truth has, don't have any bearing on its veracity or logical soundness, and racism is inexcusable no matter who is responsible for 9/11, which, as I've said repeatedly, doesn't have to be a choice between either one or the other.

This was a wobbly, rather desperate face-saving attempt and I'm not buying the bunkum. I quote from the rules:

"Do not post material that promotes hatred, racism, violence, terrorism or criminal actions."

Heed them. You've been a repeat offender.

Everyone on 9/11 Blogger

Should read what you said there SnowCrash. No fact theories and illogical speculation HELP THE 9/11 COVER-UP! Makes perfect sense!

Not sure how that conclusion

of "no hijacker" theories are somehow tied (to or popular with) those of us who understand that the towers did not just "collapse" by fire and gravity. I (for one), never said that. And the other "bumper sticker" ideas are totally contrary to the point of the "irritate Al quida", half semi serious idea.

Let's say that Al Qaeda is indeed real deal 100 percent muslim terrorist organization with no ties whatsoever to western intellegence. If so,than to upset or irritate those terroerists , of course one should do whatever is contrary to their wish, or support an investigation of 9/11,

Now lets say this is a fake article planted by the CIA. The same applies, and that is to draw attention to the absurdity of the fake statement, would also be to support an investigation.

Regardless, this has NOTHING to do with whether the hijackers are real or voice morphing or flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Lol.

Lol.

Now, if we could only prove the existence of al Qaeda...!

Dont forget

Now that OBL is "officially" dead they can no longer spew out fake videos.

When I first read in a previous comment that their English language mag is called "inspire", I smiled. It doesn't sound much like a terrorist organisation? It wouldn't inspire me!

Don't put anything past them

'Now that OBL is "officially" dead they can no longer spew out fake videos'

Oh, don't be so sure of that. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't get presented with 'newly discovered' bin Laden videos that somehow didn't get aired on Al Jazeera at the time he made them.

More OBL videos?

More OBL videos of him watching TV? Oh that would be frightening! (Despite locals saying that the video of OBL watching TV was the property's landlord and not the world's best known Evil Mastermind).

Now that UBL is dead...

...we can't see pictures of him dead either:

US tells court bin Laden photos must stay secret

http://news.yahoo.com/us-tells-court-bin-laden-photos-must-stay-221620289.html

National Security, of course.

...we can't see pictures of him dead either:

but we can HEAR about genuine photos that exist but cannot view.

Everything "Bin Laden" is Bogus

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf).

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. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

The U.S. has no friends, nor does it want to keep any because the prerequisite of friendship is to come to the level of the friend or consider him at par with you. America does not want to see anyone equal to it. It expects slavery from others. Therefore, other countries are either its slaves or subordinates. However, our case is different. We have pledged slavery to God Almighty alone and after this pledge there is no possibility to become the slave of someone else. If we do that it will be disregardful to both our Sustainer and his fellow beings. Most of the world nations upholding their freedom are the religious ones, which are the enemies of the United States, or the U.S. itself considers them as its enemies.

The countries which do not agree to become the U.S. slaves are China, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Syria [Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan, Indonesia, Malaysia] and Russia. 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. According to my information, the death toll is much higher than what the U.S. Government has stated. But the Bush Administration does not want the panic to spread. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. They can be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American-Jews, who are annoyed with President Bush ever since the elections in Florida and want to avenge him.

Then there are intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion 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. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat. In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

'Inspired'

That's why we didn't need to capture Bin Laden for interrogation - we have Al-Qaeda's English-language news magazine, "Inspire", to give us the scoop on the inner thoughts of these terrorists!

We don't even need decent translators, since there is no original Arabic to translate. hmm... now if we could only track down the English speaking Muslim jihadists from their source - no, but then we would lose out on this excellent source of ready-made intelligence.

Sounds like someone IS inspired.

the "jihadica" link

If you actually visit the link, some of what you will find there is the following:

The link to the "Inspire" magazine article does not work.

Some quotes from the article at the jihadica site:

"The magazine appears to be the work of the Yemen-based group al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula [...;] features the logo of the “al-Malahim foundation”, AQAP’s media arm, and contains articles by and about AQAP members such as Anwar al-Awlaqi and Nasir al-Wahayshi. Unfortunately, only 3 of the 67 pages are legible, as the PDF seems to be corrupt."

"...the question of authenticity is neither soluble nor particularly important. Most commentators address the issue of authenticity in binary terms, as if documents are either fabricated by the CIA or manufactured by the inner core of al-Qaida. This is not how propaganda production works. Virtually no propaganda today is produced by the inner core of militant organizations. Propaganda production is usually outsourced to cells and individuals with varying degrees of contact with senior operatives. In fact, a considerable amount of jihadi media is produced by self-started entrepreneurs with no direct ties to militants whatsoever. Authenticity is therefore most often a matter of degrees, not a question of either-or. Inspire may well be the work of genuine religious activists, but not necessarily of the inner core of AQAP. Without signals intelligence it is extremely difficult to determine the precise nature of the link between the editors and the AQAP leadership."

"Judging from the amount of recycled material in Inspire, I would be surprised if the AQAP connection is very strong."

Why then should we give any credence at all to this story?

Yeah

I've "actually" visited the link I cited, phredo. You should give credence to the story because AQAP is a wing of Al Qaeda, and you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Moreover, your claims that Al Qaeda does not exist are frivolous, and the quote you cited does not support your position.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting the real existence of 9/11 hijackers. No hijacker theories are irresponsible and deeply troubling for a movement that prides itself on fighting for truth and accountability.

Have you "actually" read the latest edition of Inspire Magazine? The link to Jihadica is from 2010. We've learned since then.

Edit:

"Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the wing of al-Qaeda operating in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, is led by a Yemeni who was once a close aide to Osama bin Laden."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122935812371810.html

So yeah, they're close. (Awlaki wasn't the operational leader)

And read/watch this please.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/02/2010271074776870.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2011/09/201193021015557715.html

As always, the facile "denials" serve only not to inadvertently make a confession which justifies arrest. Mutallab, Hassan, 9/11 Hijackers, training with the Mujahideen... Awlaki was there, and Khan died by his side. They know hijackers existed... and they don't agree with the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. I'm so sorry for not being a fanatic cult member who believes a plane flew over the Pentagon, the phone calls were 'fake', the hijackers were not extremists because they sinned, Bin Laden is dead/fake/alive/CIA-stooge, and "CIA"-created Al Qaeda does not exist. I apologize profusely. Yeah the CIA and the US helped create this monster.. but they didn't control it from the top down, this is a hideous myth. Instead, they knew everything they had to know to stop the attacks but didn't, in fact, obstructed justice and it looks like they deliberately allowed the attack to occur, and made some things happen, too.

I am appalled by these murders... extrajudicial assassinations, along with torture and war crimes represent the most hideous of misdeeds and atrocities perpetrated by the US.

"Fanatic cult members" et al

"The link to Jihadica is from 2010. We've learned since then." The jihadica link was the link you posted, of course. And I didn't mean that you, SnowCrash, had not "actually" visited the link, of course. I said "actually visit" because I assume that some people may tend to trust information just because a link is provided without actually checking out what the link really says.

I don't have any reason to disagree with what you or Al Jazeera say about the "Yemeni who was once a close aide to Osama bin Laden."

I think your remarks about the "fanatic cult member" and his beliefs are a bit of a straw man, although I do have doubts about some of the points you mention, but "I apologize profusely" for having them.

One can expect anything...

Nothing's beyond these people we're up against. They view the many of us as too dumb, too ignorant and most of all too lazy and too scared to suspect anything, no matter what info they put out. Many will believe the most farfetched coincidences, like the passport that was found from one of the hijackers.
I'm reminded of the movie Saw (part 4 I believe): "You think it's over just because I'm dead? It's not over, the games have just begun".

Well, that may be true, we'll see..

Wouldn't Al Qaida benefit 9/11 conspiracy theories?

If Al Qaida's goal is to bring down the U.S., wouldn't sowing the seeds of distrust between the U.S., it's citizens, and the international community go a long way in achieving that end? They would be using the CIA's own tactics against them. Taking the role of the fall guy while letting Ahmadinejad take all of the risk of speaking out is a great opportunity for them. Al Qaida's continuing position as a secretive, borderless, entity only serves to perpetuate the war on terror, so why not ally with a strong nation like Iran to spread dissent among the western ranks.

The first thing that doesn't smell right to me is this statement "[questioning 9/11]...a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?" Wow, where have heard that before. It's like copying and pasting in the establishment denial line. They must know the blatantly obvious evidence that proves U.S. involvement. I think this is nothing but another warning from the CIA via their terror proxy to Ahmadinejad just as he was warned last year to stop asking for a new investigative panel. If he continues, the next step is taken.

I don't quite see how this statement provides any new evidence about the alleged hijackers or faked calls. I am not saying that there were no hijackers or all the calls were faked, that's just preposterous. However, could one or two calls have been faked? I think that is possible in order to bolster the stories of problem flights like 77 where there is was no hijack squawk, poor pilot, undersized hijackers to take control, no CVR, airport security video without time and location stamps, and dubious copies of original flight manifests. I believe there were certainly hijackers ensuring they were seen and noticed, but what exactly their role was is still in question to me.

That's my 2 bits anyway, thanks for listening.

peace all

dtg

Al Qaeda slams Iran for peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories By Lau

Al Qaeda slams Iran for peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories
By Laura Rozen | The Envoy – Wed, Sep 28, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/al-qaeda-slams-iran-peddling-9-11-conspiracy-183407514.html

It's not often foreign leaders are chastised by al Qaeda for going too far in their critique of the United States--but Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has somehow managed the trick. Ahmadinejad is already facing bruising attacks at home from conservative Iranian clerics and politicians on several fronts--and now al Qaeda representatives are assailing him for peddling conspiracy theories that deny the terrorist group's culpability for the Sept. 11 attacks.

According to the new issue of "Inspire" magazine--the English-language propaganda outlet put out by the group's Yemeni affiliate al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)--Ahmadinejad insulted the terrorist group by renewing past conspiratorial claims about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon during his speech before the United Nations last week.

"The mysterious September 11 incident" merits an investigation into possible "hidden elements involved" seeking a pretext for America's invasion of the Middle East, Ahmadinejad suggested in his Sept. 22 address to the world body--prompting an immediate walk-out by the United States and several European delegations.

And it seems that this was all a bit much for al Qaeda.

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government," an article in Inspire's latest issue argued, according to ABC News' Lee Ferrin. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

more: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/al-qaeda-slams-iran-peddling-9-11-conspiracy-183407514.html

Can you prove it's legit?

Can you prove it's legit? What you have is a printed page the origins of which are in shadow. Why,on Earth,should the default position be that's it's legit? On the contrary,considering the many example of Government lies,the wise thing to do is to consider it a propaganda piece until evidence to the contrary surfaces (if ever). By your logic you shouldn't be a Truther at all, you should believe we found WMD in Iraq,that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire,that Jessica Lynch is a great 'Rambo' like hero,that Building 7 fell due to fire,that Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to Washington,That Iraqi soldiers put premature infant on the cold,hard floor to die & stole their incubators,That it was a legit nurse who teary eyed told us about it,that no one ever dreamed of using airlines as missiles etc,etc.
You get the point. You're dealing with an entity that thinks nothing of lying and does so as a matter of course. Therefore,when they claim something,it ought to be considered a lie until proven otherwise. the third time the boy cried ,"Wolf" the people didn't come. How many lies until you wise up to the fact they're liars?

funny coincidence

"the wise thing to do is to consider it a propaganda piece until evidence to the contrary surfaces (if ever)."

"if ever" may drag out a bit:

American Jihadi Samir Khan Killed With Awlaki

That's what I thought

I had already seen that Awlaki had been killed, but so much for the notion that "nothing is done" about this magazine.

I give it five minutes before people start saying Khan was killed to shut him up, instead of acknowledging that maybe electronic leads revealed by the latest publication of "Inspire" lead authorities to these men. I've done some examination myself and I've seen some of those leads. Khan wasn't cautious enough.

14 minutes late

"I give it five minutes before..."

Well, you were about 14 minutes late, because that was, in fact, the implication of my post, more or less. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that "Khan was killed to shut him up", exactly; maybe something more complicated than that; but that there was foreknowledge that it would be safe to promulgate the "taking credit for 9/11" statement because the statement, and "Inspire" magazine, itself, as a "voice of Al-Qaeda", were soon to become an unverifiable part of the history of 9-11.

Just because

... your haphazard criteria for "verification" aren't met, doesn't mean your favorite fantasy is true instead. I wasn't late, I was on the case, since I follow the news closely. But I'll admit the ignorant rumors, machinations and suppositions travel at light speed. There is always a regiment of armchair conspiracy theorists ready to declare everything but their preferred data 'fake' at the click of a mouse. Shouting 'fake' at everything that comes your way, based on infallible 'intuition' doesn't impress me, sorry. I don't care for Youtube-level discourse. Prove your claims, even if merely implied and indirect, especially if they're as irresponsible and flimsy as they've been, and continue to be.

You really are "On the case"

Jeez, it was just a sort of joke! I only meant that you were 14 minutes later than my post, which in fact was intending to suggest that there was something suspect about the close time connection between the "credit taking" and the demise of some of the "credit takers." So it wasn't going to take the "five minutes" you suggested: it had already happened. Lighten up!

I don't have any "claims" to "prove" -- I just have a lot of doubt and skepticism. If you want to call my skepticism a "fantasy", you're welcome to do so. I'm getting tired of all these hot-headed replies, and I think I'll say "good afternoon."

There was an incident a few

There was an incident a few years ago in which the corporate media posted news of "al Qaeda messages and terror warnings on the net", which were hosted by a website based in Houston Texas.... surprise surprise. Nobody was busted.

Sue Lindauer

has said that CD and hijackings are not mutually exclusive. She was told to anticipate and expect hijackings.

But the lack of footage at any of the departure airports providing evidence that the hijackers got on the planes is concerning.

Maybe Sue was misinformed.

Why is Sue Lindauer yaboo here?

I have submitted to this site at least two articles on Lindauer but they don't get past the moderators. Any idea?

If that's what Lindauer says

... then she's right. Apart from that, I don't know her and I vaguely recall her being controversial. Could be. Irrelevant to the point at hand though, that the existence and actions of hijackers do not preclude something done to the buildings by someone else than Al Qaeda and that the United States government and Al Qaeda can both be responsible for 9/11. I hope this realization will reach critical mass at some point. It effectively eliminates all attack vectors so often exploited at the expense of the 9/11 TM, and more importantly, it's the truth. In terms of useful idiots, it doesn't get any better than some fundamentalists willing to die in a martyrdom operation, secretly shepherded, shielded and facilitated for strategic purposes, by the very authorities who were supposed to be safeguarding the hijackers' intended targets from them. And if I'm wrong about that, and this is "criminal incompetence", then I still want accountability. I will follow the truth wherever it leads, regardless of whether this pleases truthers or debunkers. Speaking truth almost never involves popularity, you will almost always have people who take offense. Everybody here knows that. This is also why in-movement friendships tend to have an expiration date.

it's his turn next !

Like that no one will bref surprised when al-qaeda assassinates him

error double entry

error

911Blogger arguments

I'm pretty surprised by the range of comments here.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that AQ was a CIA invention - as described by Robin Cook MP
That both KSM and OBL were CIA assets - according to Sibel Edmonds...
That the Bin Laden family were bosom buddies of the Bushes and Kissinger...
That OBL's health was in a near terminal state in 2001 and was visited by CIA agents...

QED: AQ as bogey man is a CIA generated myth. Perhaps it has since created real anti-American terrorists - however, we can be pretty sure that it is well and truly infiltrated by western intelligence.

We even have the well researched http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/ from James Corbett

Therefore there should be no doubt that this counter-intuitive statement from AQ to Ahmadinejad is anything except a CIA inspired warning to Iran to keep quiet... (or else).

Doubt and reality

>>Therefore there should be no doubt

There are always doubts, that's what investigation is about, but also, things change and shift with time, as needs change.

A real organization can start, then be infiltrated, be exposed, and then go on to inspire other real organizations . . . we can probably never know the full truth of some of these things, who was the real creator of what, why, and how.

Who is Hamas? Who is the Tea Party? What are the Ds and Rs, really, anymore, except mouthpieces and robots for the benefit of the super-rich and the mega-corporations?

Where money and power is involved, there are often hidden agendas. As long as the masses are kept circling their own wagons, they won't notice the billionaires behind the curtain getting away with unbelievable crimes.

Hence, the Wall St. protests . . .

This fake AQ claim is just another redirection to keep people going in circles.

Who would you prefer?

The word of Robin Cook, some speculation the name stems from a 'database', or the word of Osama Bin Laden himself? I've never seen either the 'toilet' or the 'database' nonsense linguistically confirmed.

I discuss this here. I'll quote it again:

BIN LADEN: This has nothing to do with this poor servant of God, nor with the al Qaeda organization. We are the children of an Islamic nation whose leader is Mohammed.

We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.

Those men who sacrificed themselves in New York and Washington, they are the spokesmen of the nation's conscience. They are the nation's conscience that saw they have to avenge against the oppression.

Transcript of Bin Laden's October interview, 2002-02-05.

And:

Al Qaeda:

تنظيم القاعدة‎

Database:

قاعدة البيانات

Wikipedia's Arabic translation:

القاعدة‎

But I'd rather rely on somebody fluent in Arabic, like Osama Bin Laden, who said nothing about either a "toilet" or a "database", both ridiculous names for an organization set up entirely by the CIA. This is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of Operation Cyclone, which I've also mentioned before in my article about Assange's "annoyed" comment about 9/11 Truth.

The FACT that Al Qaeda exists is exactly why it's so deplorable we've had a hand in the process that caused it to come into being, and the opportunistic allegiances with Al Qaeda in the Balkans, as well as the agents infiltrating Al Qaeda, not used to stop Al Qaeda, but to have a leg up on its next move, such as 9/11.

UBL Interviewed from his grave

Transcript of Bin Laden's October interview, 2002-02-05

You want to believe Osama?

Here he could actually speak for himself since he was still alive:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-28/al-qaida-calls-ahmadinejad-end-911-conspiracy-theories#comment-253425

Osama Bin Rottin' claims

Please read my explanation of why this fails the logic and evicence test here. I don't think any of the replies by Graeme MacQueen appropriately dealt with this argument.

Here is what I said on TruthAction BEFORE OBL's assassination

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 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"?

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=43152#43152

I predicted the country he was in and even spoke about sending in commandos:

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011

You excuse yourself from your responsibility of catching him.. because oh.. those mountains in Pakistan.. so difficult to navigate. Nope. Can't find him there. We don't have commandos who can do that. He could be dead, maybe he is, maybe he isn't.. but those tapes sure are a threat..

Bullshit! They are playing it both ways!

Who really benefits from reports of Bin Laden's death? NATO and Bin Laden. Bin Laden gets to use his get-out-jail-free-card... and we get to toy with him as Emmanuel Goldstein.

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=43153#43153

Obama, for whatever reason, decided he was going to kill Bin Laden, departing from SOP under Bush: to let OBL get away, keeping him around as a justification for the GWOT. By now, however, it seems pretty clear the GWOT is never going to end regardless of how many key terrorist leaders are murdered.

If I didn't know what I was talking about, then how did I accurately predict OBL was alive, in Pakistan and that a team of commandos could get him? Two weeks before commandos killed (illegally murdered) Bin Laden in Abottabad?

Who would you prefer?

"Who would you prefer? The word of Robin Cook, some speculation the name stems from a 'database', or the word of Osama Bin Laden himself?"

This is a no-brainer. From Robin Cook's obituary:

"Robin Cook, who has died suddenly at the age of 59, was one of the cleverest and most creative figures in modern British politics. He devoted his entire career to the advancement of the Labour party and the pursuit of radical change within society. Cook was one of the very few contemporary politicians whose national reputation was built principally within the chamber of the House of Commons. He was a brilliant, coruscating debater whose most devastating performances combined lofty ridicule and forensic analysis in equal measure."

While OBL was either a terrorist leader or a CIA stooge or probably both. I wouldn't trust anything that he said or reported to have said.

Oh

In that case, you don't trust Bin Laden's claim that he wasn't responsible for 9/11, correct?

Obituaries...speak good of the dead. I'm sorry, but Robin Cook didn't know what he was talking about, and he was rebuffed by the man whose organization he mischaracterized. That's definitive.

Definitive?

I don't trust anything that Bin Laden said or is reported as saying.

I don't need any obituary, I merely quoted it since you obviously don't know him. Robin Cook was former Foreign Minister and the only politician who had the decency to resign over the Iraq War. He had the information. "Rebuffed by the man he mischaracterized"? You're talking in riddles, man. Whoever you're referring to CIA or AQ, both had alternative agendas from "the truth". I wouldn't trust either.

Robin Cook has died. And it is in the "Mysterious" category. In the UK it sits with others: David Kelly, Michael Todd et al.

Of course I know Robin Cook

Don't be silly. I just don't respect his take on Al Qaeda. I do respect Jason Burke's take, who Adam Curtis misrepresents. Have you read Burke's book?

Why do I defend the "OCT" so much?

I think that's a legitimate question to ask, and the answer is that after being burned by Pentagon theories, I refuse to jump to conclusions, and I've set the bar for evidence very high. In fact, I've come to believe the government encourages false conspiracy theories by not dispelling them.

Bianna Golodgrya (narrating)
And while president Obama faces a showdown with Republicans, should he also take on those who question where he was born?

Bianna Golodgrya
Donald Trump even comes out questioning now. I mean do you think at this point the president should just say: "You know what, I'm sick of taking the high road", and just either fight back or handle this once and for all?

Bill Clinton
I think he will... fight back, but I think that the ... the ... one of the elemental rules of combat, is: you don't want to get in your opponent's way if he's shooting himself in the foot.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/04/bill-clinton-birther-doubts-about-obama-are-ludicrous/

Don't step into the trap they've set for you. Only promote something if you've failed to find ways to debunk your own position. Use the journalistic, philosophic-skeptic, historiographic and scientific method to arm yourselves against misdirection, foregone conclusions, cognitive biases, and especially, falsification-speculation. Example: Just because Homer Simpson wasn't in church, doesn't mean he was in the bar. Prove he was in the bar.

You'll be much more effective if you use this research methodology.

You can rant that people shouldn't jump to conclusions

all you want and get into all kinds of arguments over minutia.

But in reality, all that is necessary for a rational honest person to see that the present official explanation of the events of 911 is nonsense is the collapse of WTC 7. It is in fact the Zapruder film of 911. The physics of that collapse proves controlled demolition and prior knowledge since a building of that size could not be rigged in a day especially with fires in it.

The Zapruder film showing JFK's head flying back to the left rear, and contradicting the physics of the Warren Commission story being only shots from the right rear, was all a rational honest person needed in that case to prove the Warren Commission story was nonsense.

The public reaction to the showing of the Zapruder film on network television in March of 1975 is also what caused the second investigation into the JFK assassination. Although justice wasn't really served the second investigation ultimately had to concede that there was probably a conspiracy.

Right now the only thing stopping a new investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is stonewalling by certain government officials, as they don't have an explanation for it. It would be interesting to know who is forcing the stonewalling.

The Well Connected Bloomberg Likely The Primary Stonewaller

NYC's Mayor Bloomberg is a billionaire Council on Foreign Relations member who has flip-flopped between the Democrat and Republican parties and overturned NYC's term limit law for mayoral office.

One should ask themselves - why does a multi-billionaire want to spend his golden years as perpetual mayor and resident of a congested city?

As for the official 9/11 tale, its an unproven allegation in nearly every respect. But the power of repetitive TV can make almost anything seem real.

Refuse to jump to conclusions

The OCT is definitely "a legend" in some parts...

Pentagon: there is not enough hard evidence to prove anything.

First plane: did it even exist?! Let's assume "yes" just because of that one piece of film and the undoubted kinetic effect seen on the north tower.

Second plane: almost certainly existed and crashed into South Tower.

Shanksville: there is not enough hard evidence to prove anything.

Hijackers: may, or may not, have existed and may, or may not, have used the identities claimed but the "magic passports" probably says not.

Tower collapses: unique and entirely improbable except with some additional "help".

Pre-knowledge: overwhelmingly evident hence calling into question the whole OCT.

So effectively the whole of the OCT has serious flaws and it is pointless trying to "defend it"... There is no conclusion jumping here as far as I can tell...

No planers

"Pentagon: there is not enough hard evidence to prove anything."

"First plane: did it even exist?! Let's assume "yes" just because of that one piece of film and the undoubted kinetic effect seen on the north tower."

"Second plane: almost certainly existed and crashed into South Tower."

If this mentality bleeds into your other positions, then it's easy to see why you're so misguided. There is no question whatsoever planes crashed into WTC 1 & 2 and the Pentagon. People who doubt planes flew into the WTC or who think a missile hit the Pentagon are called no planers, and their no planer nonsense isn't allowed on this site. There's even been an upsurge in no planerism since the anniversary. No planerism isn't merely wrong, it's completely delusional. This makes any further discussion with you pointless.

As you wish

There's nothing delusional in wanting evidence. Since the lies and "legends" are so evident then every facet of the OCT has to be examined in order to build the truth from the ground up.

Accusing me of being a "no planner" - good grief... I did say that the assumption should be that planes were used. Can you confirm that they were the same planes as described by the OCT? (No, you can't).

Oh and...

http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/

No "planner"

Yes, I think that might also be an apt description.

Yeah, I've seen Corbett's documentary and it its contents (with which I also have a bone to pick, but let's not get into that right now) actually refute the name of his website. He even dares quote Jason Burke in the process. Strange, that.

Friendly Site?

Considering this is suppose to be a friendly site, you seem to be making very antagonistic comments. If you want me out of here, then fine, I can spend my time elsewhere. Good luck with that push towards the Official Conspiracy Theory thing.