Why wasn't Osama grabbed on 9-11?

[Abe Linkman]

CBS reported that Osama was in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on 9-10-01 (for kidney treatment). Osama must have not have been very concerned about getting "captured" by the U.S. --- sort of like Bunnypants staying in the classroom while "America was under attack". Like Osama, Bunnypants must have felt perfectly safe where he was.

The Bunnypants Administration knew where Osama was on 9-10, and they surely could have grabbed him if they had wanted to. Why didn't they?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Link...

...mai chere.

[Abe Linkman]

3. Google it & find one you'll accept.

There are plenty out there, and you can't reasonably assert they're all unreliable. (yes, I know you'll try, since the news doesn't fit the Official Conspiracy Theory)

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Um, no.

You brought it up, it's your obligation to have the link.

Unless you're just spreading disinformation here, Abe. Why would you do that?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Still waiting for this link up here

I wouldn't want the main point of this thread to go wasting away while you dither about below.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Hello? Up here? The point of the thread?

Still waiting for that link...

[Abe Linkman]

20. Point of the thread.

The U.S. knew where Osama was and could have "captured" him but didn't because he was going to be framed for 9-11, and that would have been a little more challenging to pull off if he had been in custody.

Similar to Lee Harvey Oswald and the gentleman(?) who was framed for the murder of Nino Aquino (in August, 1983) when he stepped off the plane in Manilia.

When setting up and/or "capturing" (or offing) a Patsie, timing is everything, don't you know.

OBL's time is gonna come. Maybe, say, a month before the elections next year. THINK Saddam. Amazing how the Bunnypants crowd is able to pull these things off. And, about the most you can expect from the liberal media is a "there was an obvious intelligence failure, and it ought to be thoroughly investigated so it won't happen again."

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Ahem. Link...

...mai chere.

[RH]

53. See message #52

:hug:

[Abe Linkman]

24. Tons of links. Try this for starters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

[Bolo Boffin]

27. A link! Mon Dieu!

Now kindly point out in this article where the US government had knowledge of bin Laden getting this treatment.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Hello? This link doesn't say what you're saying.

The link reports that Osama went for a dialysis treatment on 9/10. The article says nothing about US knowledge of this hospital visit.

Do you have a link showing that US officials knew Osama was in the hospital on 9/10?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Whoo-hooo! Up here! Still waiting on that link...

...that shows the US government had knowledge of Osama in that hospital...Point of the thread and all...

[Abe Linkman]

40. See message #31

It has a link to a (verified) video showing bush reading an enlarged message saying: "HURRY. HE'S GETTING HIS RADIATOR FLUSHED & REFILLED. UNSURE HOW LONG PROCEDURE WILL TAKE. STOP."

(unfortunately, the date/time stamp was affixed by the same person who put together the Pentagon movie. other than that...no problemo)

Enjoy.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Imagine my disappointment...

...to realize that Abe doesn't have the link.

[rfranklin]

2. He was also in a hospital in Dubai shortly before 9/11...

and met with a CIA agent. That was probably when they finalized the 9/11 plans.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Not this again...

...the only source for this is French intelligence. You must understand that spooks can lie.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Spooks is Spooks.

You'll never find a message from me claiming our CIA agents to be incapable of lying.

Fortunately, the guilt of Al Qaeda in 9/11 doesn't rest on the sayso of an intelligence agency. It's based on the evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

12. Absent any evidence (and you know OBL denied invovlement)...

why should we accept YOUR (assuming it is YOUR) theory of the case?

Are you holding back some evidence, bolo? Now's a good time to show your hand. Let's see some real evidence.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. OBL confessed in the widely-viewed video

I've posted links over and over again to the evidence. Al Qaeda is real. It's a terrorist organization that has carried out several terrorist attacks against the Western world, most spectacularly on 9/11. Your ability to deny this is incredible.

[Abe Linkman]

16. "Wide-viewed video" is a fake.

The only known authentic statement of OBL talking about 9-11 is the one in which he denied having any involvement with the "attacks".

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Alas, it is not.

The video of Osama bin Laden discussing how he and his compatriots carried out the 9/11 attacks is authentic. Try again.

[RH]

25. Try again.

Please remind us.

What exactly was supposed to positively identify the individual in the said video as being Osama Bin Laden?

[Bolo Boffin]

28. His face. Voice recognition analysis.

Really...it's him.

[Abe Linkman]

30. Are you referring to THIS video?

http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/notquitesmokinggun.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

33. That's the one!

The video has two critical segments. The first is when, talking of the would-be martyrs, Bin Laden states "we asked them to go to America". With this phrase, he involves himself in the general conspiracy.

He also says: "We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all ... due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."

This detailed admission, voluntarily offered, places him at the highest level of planning the attacks. Should Bin Laden come to trial, it will cause his defence team almost insurmountable difficulties.

Game, set, and match.

[Abe Linkman]

35. Here's the critical segment.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bin_laden_the_movie

[Bolo Boffin]

37. When watching the video, it's clearly Osama

The same "fat Osama" picture is always trotted out, as distorted and pixelated as always. When you watch the video, it's clearly Osama, and the "fat" is a trick of the light and gross pixelization.

Meanwhile, back to the point of the thread...

[demodewd]

41. observe

[Bolo Boffin]

43. observe further

[demodewd]

44. re: observe further

The beard has too much white hair to match the verifiable Osama photo. His nose looks too short...ears too small??

[Bolo Boffin]

45. All attributible to the different environments

type of camera being used, light, etc.

It's Osama.

[demodewd]

46. Well.

Well. If you say so.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

49. and further

[number6]

50. LOLROF !!!!!!!!!

thats a good one ....:evilgrin:

[Bolo Boffin]

51. That's what I love...

...intelligent discussion of an issue. :eyes:

[RH]

36. Come off it.

According to usual standards of jurisprudence his defense team would but ask where the tape came from to begin with; ... material not admitted; end of argument.

Alternatively, who read him his rights?

And if that's not boring enough, try this:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect10.htm

e.g.

Today, nobody uses the word "voiceprint" anymore because of its erroneous association with "fingerprints". The former is a method of expert interpretation and opinion while "fingerprinting" is a matter of absolute certainty and infallibility. To use the word "voiceprint" gives the method more scientific credibility than it deserves. At best, voiceprint identification is like polygraphy (lie detection) and only admissible in 35 states, although it (like polygraphy) makes for a valuable investigative tool to screen potential suspects. Even the phrase "voiceprint identification" may be improper and should probably be abandoned in favor of the broader term, spectrographic voice recognition.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. So it's your position that it's not Osama on the tape?

Just checking that out.

[RH]

48. I looked in vain

for a detailed report of the supposed voice identification, which is odd because the credibility of an earlier audio recording appears to have been graced with a good deal more by way of comment.

The face of the suspect in the video looks to me to be the wrong shape (too wide) and the thesis that the World's most wanted man blabbed so carelessly is difficult to appreciate to begin with; he was otherwise reputed to scrupulously discriminate as to how and when to communicate.

Adn whoever the individual was, it may well have suited his purposes to claim credit albeit that he was not directly involved, the most frequent sort of lie being that which furnishes a listener with whatever he would best be pleased to hear.

On the other hand one may just well doubt that the item was faked per se as opposed to being prejudicially interpreted. Why then waste the opportunity with such a shoddy, half baked effort?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

26. Even from self-acknowledged liars (and I don't mean just Bunnypants)

Ted Olson is a typical example. And remember; only CERTAIN spooks actually lie, and the only lies about 9-11 that were told by spooks are lies which might undermine the Official Legend.

[Abe Linkman]

7. That's right. He met with the local CIA Station Chief.

NO, bolo, I don't know either gentleman, and no, I wasn't there.

You'll have to question some of the people who reported seeing him there about
any proof they may have to substantiate what they saw with their own eyes.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Barring evidence, this meeting didn't occur.

You've provided no evidence of this meeting whatsoever. You'll excuse me for not taking your word on this.

[Abe Linkman]

11. What would you accept as evidence, boloboffin?

Eyewitnesses not enough for you? Why not? You believe the known liar, Ted Olson. So, you have a selective acceptance of eyewitness evidence, right? Ted had a strong motivation to lie. Why would local OBL admirers lie about seeing him in the hospital? Has the U.S. denied the story? If so, I'm not aware of it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. What evidence have you presented?

You haven't presented any eyewitnesses. You haven't presented any "local OBL admirers." You've only presented a single La Figero story with a single source for its information, French intelligence.

Without the evidence, the alleged CIA-Osama meeting in Dubai is just that, alleged. We have no reason to accept it as an actual fact of history.

[RH]

23. Did "French intelligence" issue a press release?

Compare the 'David Kelly' / 'BBC today' case.

"intelligence" sources upon closer examination are not always exactly as originally suggested.

The confidentialty of sources serves too often to conceal a multitude of sins.

What then to accept as evidence?

:silly:

How about a sworn affidavit?

Any chance?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Present something!

So far all we have is "French intelligence" in the Figaro article and nothing else.

[Abe Linkman]

31. Getting desperate, are we?

There is a much more effective strategy your side could have employed. If IT had been selected instead of the one chosen, ridicule and snickers would not be the automatic response.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. ???

Land o'Goshen, but I can't figure out what you're talking about.

I'm asking for evidence of this meeting besides a one-dubious-source newspaper article. That's all.

[RH]

52. Expressly as hearsay

CBS reported "a story of what may have happened the night before".

albeit that "Government officials reached Monday night denied that bin Laden received any medical treatment that night."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml

11 months after the story appeared and more than two years after the date in question there would appear to be no sign of anything to corroborate the rumour.

[Abe Linkman]

54. CBS reported that " they were told" he was there.

In the CBS story, they did NOT say that the report they aired was a rumor.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. And still nothing in the story indicating US knowledge...

...of bin Laden's treatment.

Where's the link showing that the US knew bin Laden was in that hospital?

[Abe Linkman]

56. Where's the link showing proof that Ted Olson wouldn't lie?

Where's the link proving that the US knew OBL was the mastermind behind 9-11? So far, all you've provided is video that shows a very poor actor
dressed up to look like Osama. Clearly a fake.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. You're changing the subject; does that mean you concede the point?

[Abe Linkman]

59. Pointing out how silly your "argument" is.

Who do you think you're fooling trying to suggest that the U.S. government wouldn't know something reported on one of the three major TV networks? I'll bet everyone at H & Knowlton knew it, and they seem to have a lot of connections to the U.S. Government. You don't dispute that too, do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. You have no evidence.

If you had it, you would have presented it by now. You have, once again, your mere speculation that the US knew Osama was at that hospital when he was there. This speculation is the sole support of your assertion that the US government could have picked up Osama on 9/10. But you have no evidence that they knew he was there.

The date on the CBS story is January 29, 2002. That is POST-9/11. Finding out he was there, after he was already gone, is not grounds for saying they could have picked him up PRE-9/11. There isn't a single word in the CBS story that suggests the US ever knew about Osama in that hospital. There is only your groundless speculation that they did.

Admit it, why don't you? You're embarrassing yourself.

[Abe Linkman]

61. You have zero evidence for your claims about Ted Olson, but CBS...

reported that Osama was in the hospital, and anyone who says that our Government wouldn't have known about it is either extremely naive, trying to start a flame war here, or else has an agenda not shared by most people who are interested in objective truth.

You come across as though you realize you made a tactical mistake by trying to raise doubts about something so obvious to anyone with even an elementary understanding of how all Governments acquire information.

If you claim our Government didn't have a clue about the CBS news report, either from CBS or our Intelligence services, that makes your limited, modified hang-out argument that the U.S. Gov't was only "negligent" or "incompetent" on 9-11 fall flatter than it alwasy was.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Do you understand the importance of dates here?

The CBS story was reported four and a half months AFTER 9/11. Has the government invented time travel? That's the only way they could have picked up Osama at that hospital if they learned about it from the CBS report. You have no evidence that anyone learned about it any earlier than that.

Your entire point is that the government could have picked up Osama on 9/10, but you've yet to show that the government knew where Osama was on that date. The CBS story speaks as to how secretive Paki intelligence was being about Osama's presence there. Objective truth would admit that no one in the US government knew he was there that day.

Did our government know he was there? I don't have a clue, and considering the evidence you've presented here, neither do you.

[Abe Linkman]

63. You are being intentionally truculent. Why?

Does our government know what people say here on DU?

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Why won't you respond to the argument, Abe?

You're on here saying that the government could have picked up Osama on 9/10, but didn't because he was to be a patsy. You have provided no evidence for this speculation, and I've called you on it. Instead of saying, "You know what? I overstated the case here. In the interest of objective truth, I'd like to say that I was wrong," you keep talking about H&K, Ted Olson, anything but the point.

Why won't you deal with the consequences of what you say, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

65. ATTN: DUers - Who DOUBTS the U.S. monitors news/intelligence?

Boloboffin seems to think that U.S. Intelligence would NOT have known about the CBS NEWS report of Osama being in a military hospital in Pakistan on September the 10th, 2001.

I say it's preposterous to claim that U.S. Intelligence would NOT have been aware of the fact that OBL was in a military hospital in Pakistan.
To think otherwise, you'd have to believe that our C.I.A. doesn't have good contacts with Intelligence agencies worldwide (esp. in Pakistan, where we set up theirs...the I.S.I.)...and you'd have to believe the CIA, NSA & all the rest don't even bother to monitor the news (from U.S. sources & those overseas).

Boloboffin says that since the news reports didn't say that the U.S. Gov't knew about Osama's hospital visit, it's mere speculation that they did know about it.

I say Boloboffin doesn't know the facts and doesn't know what Intelligence agencies do. I say it's BULL to claim the U.S. wouldn't know such an important thing about such an important person (Osama).

What say you?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. The CBS report is dated January 29, 2002!!!

LOL!

It wouldn't matter if the US intelligence community monitors the news, which they do. The report about Osama being in the hospital on 9/10/01 was released on 01/29/02, four and a half months later. Assuming the US intelligence community monitors the news is NOT proof that the US government knew Osama was in the hospital while he was there! The only way US intelligence could have picked up Osama in the hospital on 9/10/01 based on the CBS report, is if they've invented time travel!

Is this line of reasoning your Christmas present to me, Abe? If I'd had known, I would have made you some lemon bars in return...

[Abe Linkman]

67. The U.S. Gov't monitors news 24/7 Bolo---didn't they tell you that?

Who do you think you're kidding with this? Your boss?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. It doesn't matter, Abe

Let me set this out for you as clearly as possible:

September 10, 2001 - Osama enters Pakistan hospital for dialysis
September 11, 2001 - Al Qaeda attacks America
January 29, 2002 - CBS reports on Osama being in hospital September 10

Now when did US intelligence know about Osama being in the hospital, based on the above information?

No one can say, because the knowledge of the US government isn't covered in the above information. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but no one can say for certain, based on the CBS story, which is the only evidence you've provided thus far for your assertion that they did know.

It doesn't matter that news is monitored 24/7. If the government learned on 1/29/02 of Osama being in that hospital 9/1/01, they could only have picked him up if they had invented time travel.

[Abe Linkman]

71. Your PR spin doesn't change the fact that our intelligence knew exactly...

where Osama was, and YOU know it as well as I do. The rules here forbid questioning anyone's motives for why they post certain things (at least I believe that is the case)...so if you are hoping to get me to post something that would allow you to try to get me banned...it won't happen.

In the meantime, if you want to continue promoting the idea that our Gov't doesn't have a clue about Osama being in a military hospital in Pakistan on 9-10-01, have at it. Even our beloved and great leader wants us to believe fairy tales, so why not you too, if that is your desire.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. You would rather discuss anything but my argument that proves you wrong.

You speculate on my employment, you go off on Ted Olsen rants or Osama confession videos, anything to avoid meeting my argument head on in debate.

I accept this as proof that you concede the point.

[Abe Linkman]

75. bolo: You speculate that the U.S. Gov't would not have had intelligence..

regarding the hospitalization of the #1 Terrorist in the world, in a country where we have very close ties to THEIR intelligence service (since we set it up)...and knowing that the HEAD of their I.S.I. was in Washington, D.C. on THAT VERY DAY?

You'll forgive me for thinking you've really slipped and surely your performance review will take a hit for that one.

As I said, there was a much better strategy you COULD have used that wouldn't have required you to try and defend and deflect something so obviously absurd.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. You are perhaps not aware...

...that elements of Pakistan intelligence don't tell the US everything about what they do. You labor under the assumption that the Pakistan intelligence community is an arm of the US intelligence community, and all knowledge possessed by the Pakistan intelligence community is instantly and completely shared with US intelligence.

The head of the ISI was in Washington that day? Fine. That's not evidence that anyone in the US intelligence community knew Osama was in that hospital. The US government set up the Pakistan intelligence community? It still isn't evidence that the US knew Osama was in the Pakistan military hospital.

You are begging the question. You are assuming the validity of your facts without evidence. This is illogical.

Your fantasies of my employment are beneath contempt.

[RH]

81. That should already be enough

to deserve immediate expulsion, if only because of the sheer boredom of it.

The implication is clearly one of deliberately dishonesty, purposely intended to harm, albeit (as we all well enough) with nothing whatseover to prove the paranoioa.

Does he think he's going to impress people with this sort of libel?

boloboffin's commedably diplomatic tolerance is amazing. Discerning the opponent's mental age to be akin to that of a six or seven year old one can but understand that a mothering instinct is somehow nurtured.

:hug:

[RH]

58. Rumor =

"a piece of information or a story of unknown or uncertain origin, not confirmed by evidence, and usu. spread by word of mouth; hearsay."

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=rumour&matchtype=exact

Do you have the name of the source?

[paulthompson]

69. Some comments

Bin Laden presumably knew the 9/11 attacks would happen when they did, so he had his medical treatment at the last minute and got to a safe place in time. What's interesting to me about the CBS report is that it says the Pakistani military stood guard during his treatment. He is supposedly enemy #1, and our "close ally" Pakistan is doing all it can to make sure he stays healthy and uncaptured. Other reports show that this hospital visit was merely one of many for bin Laden in Pakistan.

(I don't doubt bin Laden knew when the attacks would happen - hell, tons of people knew. The attacks were so widely known in Afghanistan, that in July 2001 the CIA reported that "Everybody is talking about an impeding attack" and even the head of the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's enemies, knew all about it.)

The gvmt of Pakistan knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, as even Time magazine has reported recently. So why didn't they grab him at that point, if they were such good allies?

The other point I wanted to make was about this so called bin Laden confession video. Here's an article about it, which I post in full because it's a translation. The link is to the original German.

Monitor is basically Germany's 60 Minutes. Very reputable.


Bin Laden Video: Faulty Translation as Evidence?

by Georg Restle and Ekkehard Sieker
Monitor
December 20, 2001

http://web.archive.org/web/20020208221658/http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/beitraege.phtml?id=379



Klaus Bednarz: "And the propaganda war goes on as well. Last week the American government presented an amateur video in English translation showing bin Laden with a circle of followers, and President Bush claims it's 'a devastating declaration of guilt' from bin Laden.

"MONITOR obtained the Arabic version of the tape from the American State Department and had it analysed by independent and sworn Arab and German linguists and specialists in Middle Eastern and oriental studies.

"And look: the English translation that the US government presented to the world is not only manipulated in parts, but even contains mistakes. A report from Ekkehard Sieker and Georg Restle."

The main CBS News on December 13. The most important item: The bin Laden video sent by the Pentagon to TV stations worldwide. The presenter is sure: This clearly proves that bin Laden is guilty of the terror attacks on September 11.

But in many Arab states skepticism rules. Does this tape really show an admission of guilt from bin Laden, does it contain undeniable evidence of criminal foreknowledge by the Al Qaeda leader? Does this tape justify the war in Afghanistan beyond any doubt as a war against a mass-murder? For the US government the case is clear.

George W. Bush: "I knew this tape would be a devastating declaration of guilt for this evil person."

But what does the tape really show? The English translation from the Pentagon seems clear. Bin Laden obviously incriminates himself and claims he already knew beforehand what would happen. But is this translatation actually correct?

We asked two translators to compare, independently from another and over a number of days, the Pentagon translation and the tape, we filtered out noise and interference and we took every possible interpretation of the text into consideration. The result:

Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini, scholar in Arabic culture/language: "I carefully checked the Pentagon translation. The translation is very problematic. The passages that are the most important, the ones that are supposed to prove bin Laden's guilt, are not identical to the Arabic sound."

Example 1: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator: "'In advance' isn't in there. It's wrong, if you start from the original Arabic version. And there are no misunderstandings. So one basically can't understand that."

Beyond that the translators agree that the sentence in the original doesn't in any way imply advanced planning or even calcultating the number of casualties beforehand.

Example 2: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator: "'Previous' isn't there. In the original Arabic version it's impossible to hear the clause that the event would take place this day or that day."

Example 3: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We asked each of them to go to America."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator': "Using 'we' in the translation is incorrect. In the original Arabic version that I heard it says: 'It was expected of them'. What comes after that, sentence or subclause, is inaudible.

Three examples out of many that puts the evidential value of the tape into doubt. That's also the opinion of Professor Rotter from Hamburg, scholar of Islamic studies.

Professor Gernot Rotter, scholar of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Asia-Africa Institute, University of Hamburg: "Regardless of the question if bin Laden personally was actively involved in the organisation of the attacks or not: This tape is of such poor quality that many passages are unintelligible. And those that are intelligible have often been taken out of context, so that you can't use that as evidence. The American translators who listened to the tape and transcribed it obviously added things that they wanted to hear in many places. Things that can't be heard - never mind how often you listen to it."

Guilty or not guilty? If the US government wants to find bin Laden guilty of the deed, they have to come up with better evidence.

Klaus Bednarz: "In war truth is the first victim. That's true for all sides."

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Thanks, Paul.

A rational discussion about these things, imagine.

No one disputes that there's a sizable portion of the Pakistan intelligence/police that are extremely loyal to bin Laden's efforts. This story is another example of that, but it doesn't show US foreknowledge of anything. That's Abe's point in bringing this up, and it's not a valid point.

On the "confession" tape:

I'm glad to see that you and the Germans can recognize that it's actually bin Laden in the tape. I'm willing to accept that the American translation is a bit wishful. But even in the German translation, bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the deed.

Example 2: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator: "'Previous' isn't there. In the original Arabic version it's impossible to hear the clause that the event would take place this day or that day."

So the sentence without the date clause reads, "We had notification that the event would take place that day." Bin Laden and his organization knew the attack was coming.

Add to this the praise of bin Laden's host, who continously points to bin Laden as the man who made it all happen. It's not just a discussion of the attacks - the man praises bin Laden's part in it all.

Bin Laden also talks about calculating the effect of the attacks as well. It's possible that it means "as they were happening," but since bin Laden admits knowing of the attack, it could easily be a revelation of a planning discussion.

Add to this the financial records detailing the hijackers' moves, where they got their money from, who they visited, etc. - it leads to the inescapable conclusion that Al Qaeda planned this attack. Bin Laden is guilty of the deaths of thousands of innocent victims.

[Abe Linkman]

72. No, bolo, you have your facts AND your speculation wrong. again.

It certainly is a valid point that our Gov't had to have known that OBL was in a military hospital on the day before the U.S. Gov't sponsored "attacks" of 9-11.

You can spin all you want to (or have to) - but other than the usual three or four Official Conspiracy Theory supporters; no sane person would believe our Gov't wouldn't have known that OBL was in a military hospital on 9-10-01...and that he was visited by the CIA Station Chief while hospitalized on a prior occasion. It's even possible that the Station Chief was OBL's ex-boss (for that matter, OBL may STILL be a CIA asset...YOU don't know otherwise, and neither do I. Well, I assume you don't know. I wouldn't think so. But, stranger things.)

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Sane people rely on evidence.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the US government knew about Osama in the hospital 9/10. The only evidence of the previous CIA-Osama "visit" in Dubai you've presented is sourced solely to an French intelligence agency.

Inasmuch as your message relies on sheer speculation without evidence, in that your message is illogical and unwarranted. You can believe what you want, but you should have the courtesy in rational debate to announce your beliefs as such. Why should your pronouncements on this subject be held as unchallenged facts?

[Abe Linkman]

76. I believe you chose a bad strategy this time, BOLO.

You chose to try and defend and deflect something that is so patently absurd that it makes me think you were forced to do it. Were you?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. More avoiding the argument.

Anything to avoid facing the consequences of your belief.

Why are you so loathe to admit you're wrong?

[paulthompson]

79. more

I think Boloboffin has a point that there's no proof the US knew bin Laden was getting medical treatment on 9/10. Pakistan has such a history of protecting bin Laden that I would even say it's unlikely the US knew of that visit. In fact, rumors are rife (and often reported in the mainstream media) that bin Laden is still in Pakistan, and still getting medical assistance courtesy of Pakistan's gvmt. His medical ailments are so great that if he isn't getting access to top medical facilities and expertise than he's probably dead.

However, I would say that if the US really wanted bin Laden, they should have put the squeeze on Pakistan. It appears neither Clinton nor Bush ever seriously did this, and even now everyone knows bin Laden is in a roughly 100 square mile section of Pakistan near the Afghan border (some reports say 30 sq mi), and no one does anything about it (assuming he's alive that is, but you can't know if you don't check).

As for that chubby guy in the supposed confession video, I highly, highly doubt that was bin Laden. Hopefully this image will show through:



This is no "trick of the light." If you compare with videos both before and after this was supposedly taken, he would been forced to have radical nose surgery twice in a span of several weeks, while up in remote Afghanistan, for this to be him.

We know he had anywhere from 4 to 10 doubles, just as Hussein did. Most likely this was one of the doubles who had to play the part of bin Laden from time to time.

The real bin Laden had repeatedly praised the attacks and sure, had foreknowledge. But that's different from saying he was the mastermind, and logically that doesn't necessarily follow. I believe he doesn't take credit because, although al-Qaeda was involved, they had bosses bigger than bin Laden. For instance, look at the recent reports of al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah reporting to higher ups in the Saudi and Pakistani gvmts.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908480226,00.html

I hardly trust Gerald Posner, but these reports are entirely consistent with everything else I've seen. Al Qaeda itself is merely a pawn to larger powers. And it gets REALLY interesting when you look at the head of Pakistan's ISI - the man whom we know ordered $100,000 sent to Mohammed Atta - meeting with US gvmt figures in the weeks leading up to 9/11 and even during the 9/11 attack itself.

As for the purported meeting between bin Laden and the CIA in Dubai, true that mostly comes from French intelligence. We don't know for sure. But I would say that French intelligence has proven time and again to be much, much more reliable regarding al Qaeda and 9/11 than US intelligence. And such clandestine contacts directly between al Qaeda and Western intelligence agencies did happen from time to time. Look for instance at the Shayler affair in Britain that exposed a deal between MI6 and al-Qaeda to assassinate Libyan leader Mummar Quaddafi.

[paulthompson]

80. image trouble

The image didn't show up. Try

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Please look at my post #43

There are some further images which look a lot more like bin Laden than the one single pixelated image you're reproducing. It shows the "fat" Osama picture to be misleading only because of the poor nature of the picture.

[RH]

86. I have just done so.

Using Paint Shop Pro I flipped horizontally a CNN image of Bin Laden in profile, the one I had posted in message #49.

Then I tweaked the gamma and increased the contrast on the lower photo in message #43 to clearly discern the features.

To compare the two I then pasted that as an extra layer directly over the flipped CNN photo with a transparency setting of 75 per cent.

I then experimented by increasing the size of the overlay by various
amounts, 110 per cent, 120 per cent etc. to match the two as best may be possible.

The conclusion is honestly inescapable: the nose of the individual in the video is indeed too short to match the previous photos of Osama Bin Laden.

If you don't believe me try it for yourself.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Three things

1. I don't have Paint Shop Pro. Thanks for posting your results.

2. When you do post your photographic results, you will try the exact same procedure on the two photos in message #43? You know, see if the two pictures in #43 will match up by your standards? They are obviously of the same person, but I'm willing to bet that your Paint Shop Pro experiment will "prove" they are not.

3. Compare these two photos:





It's Osama.

[RH]

88. Those were the photos I used

Before publishing a practical result I would hope to achieve the most accurate possible experiment which is difficult with such rough material. I reported only an opinion from a quick attempt. It takes up a lot of time to achieve the best possible match by trial and error and some considerable care to do so impartially.

That is why I prefer to suggest to others to experiment for themselves. More abusive banter we can do without.

Does anybody know of a way to upload images directly to this site?

I only know how to link to items already online.

[RH]

84. A pinch of salt

is required for anything like this.

Bin Laden may have been in Rawalpindi or it may have been mistaken identity. It may have been deliberate misdirection.

At any rate the tale doesn't sound right to me. Ill people, even those with adequate ways and means, tend not to choose when they're treated; the ailment decides for them. If Bin Laden was really so cosy with global conspirators he'd be given treatment in Miami or Switzerland and if he was not quite so cosy why then would the conspirators not just be rid of him? What purpose would it serve to prop him up but invisibly? To play a part perhaps in some subsequent propaganda, perchance in a video? Why then do we see such a dubious Bin Laden in the subsequent video? Why did a more credible version of Bin Laden deny responsibility soon after 9/11?

The least to be expected of a workable conspiracy is that it may serve some purpose, to make some sense.

:silly:

[RH]

83. Who is this "Gov't "?

What comes across here an an astonishingly childish naivety. How many in your "Gov't" do you think would even know where Rawalpindi is?

Your "Gov't" as if with a single mind and an omnipotence to match does not exist within the real World. Possibly a handful of CIA types may have been through Peshawar with some of the white stuff nicely stashed but what otherwise would the involvement be? What exactly would the logistics of the "had to have" consist of?

As a for instance do you have any idea of how many people employed by the CIA were at that time fluent in Pashto or Dari? Do you have any idea even of how many different languages are spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Why do you think Bin Laden went to Afghanistan to begin with? It is all but impossible there to keep track of anything. The possibility of government barely exists.

[paulthompson]

89. Pakistan

Ron, your post was amusing. Of course when I speak of the government I don't speak of a monolithic entity, just as if I say "I got a letter from the government" it doesn't mean everyone in the US got together and sent me a letter.

This notion that some elements in the US gvmt (is that phrase better?) couldn't engage in any intrigues in Afghanistan because it's just too chaotic and has too many languages is the really amusing part.

Do some actual fact finding yourself. CIA paramilitary teams began seriously covering Afghanistan in 1997. By 1999, Tenet said, "a map would show that these collection programs and human networks were in place in such numbers to nearly cover Afghanistan. This array meant that, when the military campaign to topple the Taliban and destroy al-Qaeda began, we were able to support it with an enormous body of information and a large stable of assets."

Naive are the people who believe the usual cover story that the CIA were a bunch of keystone kops who didn't have a clue about anything in Afghanistan before 9/11. That's what the mainstream media generally says, but here's Jim Pavitt, the CIA Deputy Director of Operations saying quite the opposite:

"With a small logistical footprint they came with lightning speed. We were on the ground within days of that terrible attack. They also came with something else. They came with knowledge of local languages, whatever you heard to the contrary notwithstanding, terrain, and politics... In those few days that it took us to get there after that terrible, terrible attack, my officers stood on Afghan soil, side by side with Afghan friends that we had developed over a long period of time, and we launched America's war against al-Qaeda... Quite simply, we were there well before the 11th of September."

The CIA has deep ties with the ISI from funneling $6 to 40 billion through them to Afghanistan in the 1980's. Many of the people closely associated with that effort are now in positions of power in the US gvmt. Current Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage for instance worked very closely with the ISI when he wasn't busy committing Iran Contra crimes, and continued to meet with the ISI in the months before 9/11 (and after).

A long-time regional expert with extensive CIA ties stated publicly just a few months before 9/11: "The CIA still has close links with the ISI."

If you wish to call people childishly naive and make claims about how you know so much about Afghanistan, please back it up with facts.

[RH]

90. This is getting to be confused.

Yes, indeed, a license to conduct any business in secret is a license to cheat, if that happens to be the point, so what else is new?

Yes, factions and intrigues I will buy into but to my mind factions and intrigues indicate corruption, not competence, nor control, the moot point that I'd had in mind being the likelihood of a "Government" knowing where Bin Laden was at any given time, and please bear in mind here the key implication: Because one department may know something another department would then arrest.

Show me any two governent departments in the United Kingdom with such a detailed awareness of what each others' left or right hands would be up to and I'll die of shock. In the context of Pakistan and Afghanistan, what can I say? May I ask a question instead? Would you wish to take on that responsibility?

I looked around yesterday for a story I'd seen in 2001 about the CIA's ability to translate the local tongues. Unfortunately I failed to trace it. In the mean time does not the background story, especially in Afghanistan, speak for itself? Control? Scrutiny? The drug Lords run amok as ever.

I try not to post too many web links so as not to fool myself into thinking that anybody reads them anyway.

[paulthompson]

92. Competence

>Yes, factions and intrigues I will buy into but to my mind factions and intrigues indicate corruption, not competence, nor control

If you're not familiar with the CIA's history of overthrowing dozens of gvmts around the world since WW2, I suggest you read a book like Killing Hope. Certainly they've had the "competence" to engage in lots of intrigues and accomplish their goals. How often it was the intelligent thing to do is another matter entirely. Blowback from the consequences is extremely common.

Regarding web links, if you post articles, I most certainly will read them and add to the timeline if relevant. If it relates to what the CIA was or wasn't doing in Afghanistan before 9/11, that would certainly be relevant.

[RH]

94. There is no doubt

about competence in term of brute force.

When in rough terms one half of the World's entire military spending is devoted to a mere five per cent of the World's entire population it is not indeed so unlikely that they'll get something back for it somewhere along the line.

But since when then was brute force and bribery the style best suited to finding needles in haystacks? The picture I get is that of an elephant sent to hunt a rabbit.

[demodewd]

91. Wish

Wish I could do a search on du for everything you have contributed.Do you contribute on other forums?

[paulthompson]

93. Me?

If you're talking about me, no I don't contribute to other forums. But you can see the result of a lot of my research here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

[RH]

82. and thanks again.

I was recently looking for that very article yesterday, to refer to it here, having seen it before, but I ran out of time.

:donut:

[leftofthedial]

95. one does not "cash in" a needed symbolic scapegoat

until one has leveraged it to the maximum, silly.