Bin Laden told followers not to 'waste [their] effort' attacking the UK

Scroll to see replies

[QUOTE="Banishingboredom;37473903"]You should read the whole article. The guy referenced hadn't worked for the US defense department since President Carter. The tone is very skeptical. Besides, all the major events of the last 60 years or so have had conspiracy theories attached to them. Have a read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The-30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html[/url}

you're missing the point, he was a part of the US government, as well as madeleine Albright (who was active).. There were others in the US government who testified to this also... even ex Pakistani prime minister... which other conspiracy theories have government officials backing them? also, as much scientific evidence?

Some people just want attention and synthesised evidence can be found to prove almost any outcome. If you pre-determine a conclusion it's often easy to find facts to support it.

indeed, if buildings are designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, collapse in a manner that is not fitting to the impact of only one.. the attacks are blamed on an organisation that doesn't exist and on an individual who denied any involvement. we're just looking into it too much..

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 201

Banishingboredom

Original post by King-Panther

you're missing the point, he was a part of the US government, as well as madeleine Albright (who was active).. There were others in the US government who testified to this also... even ex Pakistani prime minister... which other conspiracy theories have government officials backing them? also, as much scientific evidence?

indeed, if buildings are designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, collapse in a manner that is not fitting to the impact of only one.. the attacks are blamed on an organisation that doesn't exist and on an individual who denied any involvement. we're just looking into it too much..

You do know when Carter was in office right. And you haven't given any evidence for the others so I can't judge. As the Telegraph article says, with the UFO Roswell conspiracy there were a number of people who spoke out. And for the record there's no "scientific evidence" that Bin Laden died in 2001 or was not involved in 9/11. Scientific evidence needs to be verified by scientists to make it credible. For a theory to become fact it needs to be tested and confirmed by other scientists.

If there was any real credibility to any of these conspiracy claims there would be more evidence. A lot of the people putting forward these 9/11 conspiracy claims have an agenda against America and the West, as I suspect you do. For what it's worth as a hardcore atheist I am deeply distrustful of how religion plays such a huge role in American public and political affairs in supposedly the most scientifically advanced nation in the world.

I keep getting roped back into this annoyingly. However, I am well and truly finished unless you provide peer reviewed journals/ articles/ scientific findings that support your assertions that a) the twin towers were designed to withstand multiple planes hitting them b) they collapsed in an irregular manner c) Al Qaeda do not exist d) Bin Laden was not involved and e) Bin Laden died years ago and was not killed in May last year. Please don't link the BBC documentary again. I've watched the whole thing, and the Myths of 9/11 documentary debunks almost everything it said.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 202

swelshie

Original post by King-Panther

indeed, if buildings are designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, collapse in a manner that is not fitting to the impact of only one..

The collapses have been proven to be "fitting" by countless further analyses.

You're misunderstanding the multiple plane anti-collision design, this only relates to the initial impact of multiple planes. I don't mind mentioning again that it was the high intensity fires which caused unforseen damage and ultimate failure of the towers.

Reply 203

Algorithm69

Original post by Banishingboredom

He won't because he can't. I've asked him multiple times and he has just resorted to ignoring my posts now.

Reply 204

Algorithm69

Original post by xXxiKillxXx

Misheard that an ENTIRE building collapsed? Hmm okay then.

Yes, it is a completely believable scenario given the complete mayhem and confusion of that day. But you have an agenda, you have a vested interest to ignore the mountains of evidence against you, and instead to cling on to your tenuous links and speculation. You are an insult to human intelligence.

Reply 205

Banishingboredom

Original post by xXxiKillxXx

Misheard that an ENTIRE building collapsed? Hmm okay then.

The entire building caught fire due to falling debris from 9.30am that morning. It burned for 8 hours before collapsing and crucially had a number of large diesel fuel tanks that were used to power back-up generators. There was a high pressure gas supply line from the basement that kept the fire burning. Furthermore, the debris from the tower 1 collapse wiped out almost the entirety of the south wall.

Again and most importantly, there was no plausible reason why the government conspiracy would want or need to destroy the building.

Reply 206

gateshipone

Original post by King-Panther

that wasn't a mistake, that was a prophecy. lets hope they continue with this gift of prophesying future events........

Have you ever been to New York? south Manhattan is a maze of streets on a good day. I can't imagine how hard it would have been to get reliable information out of there when a lot of major communication is down and everywhere is covered in that thick dust.

There's a good reason that the full picture of what happened there took months to find out, it was a disaster on a scale no one had ever dealt with before. To expect reporters who are more used to reporting updates on the humdrum of the UN to have detailed and verified information when no one knew what had really happened is ridiculous.

Original post by King-Panther

there are US officials that declared bin laden died years ago, and they wouldn't release the news until a later date... so this "we killed bin laden" in 2011 as well as these documents are nonsense... if it were so, where are the images of his body and so forth....

This always makes me laugh. You really think if OBL had been killed while Bush was in office that it'd be kept secret until his rival party were in the White House and let them take all the glory? You're crazy and know nothing about US politics. I guarantee Bush would have announced OBL's death as soon as possible and would have been able to use that as propaganda for years to boost his support.

Reply 207

Aj12

Original post by King-Panther

no, your claim is that it is through the insurgent attacks, which is another lie created by your government and even then, there were no bombs going off in Iraq nor Afghanistan before you invaded.

No there was just a homicidal dictator killing hundreds of thousands and using chemical weapons on his own people.

Anyway most of the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are caused by the Taliban and in Iraq the sectarian strife. The below explains Afghanistan

Deaths and their cause in Afghanistan
Anti government forces caused 2000 civilian deaths in 2010 In 2011 this rose to 2300. these are mostly caused by IED's and executions. A meer 15% of these deaths were during engagement with government forces. targeted killings of Afghans have risen sharply in the last few years.
Pro government forces killed 427 in 2011 this dropped to
Above figures are from a UN report that I really suggest you read.
http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/UNAMA%20POC%202011%20Report_Final_Feb%202012.pdf

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 208

username247300

exam monday, i'll be back at a later date.

Reply 209

Banishingboredom

Original post by King-Panther

how about the the project manager of the construction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

This video was from before the attacks. He died in the towers (saving nearly a hundred people's lives). This isn't evidence.

Reply 210

username247300

Original post by Banishingboredom

This video was from before the attacks. He died in the towers (saving nearly a hundred people's lives). This isn't evidence.

he's confirming the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes!

Reply 211

Emissionspectra

Original post by King-Panther

exam monday, i'll be back at a later date.

Your back early.

Reply 212

Banishingboredom

Original post by King-Panther

he's confirming the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes!

Different sized planes and that was based on the mosquito net design which clearly didn't work as the plane penetrated the central steel structures. The designers said the Titanic was unsinkable.

This guy is a hero don't mention him again.

Reply 213

username247300

Original post by Banishingboredom

the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.

Reply 214

gateshipone

Original post by King-Panther

the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.

Read the description, he's talking about slow planes in fog, not planes gunning it at top speed. That's going to cause them to penetrate further into the building and damage more supports than it could handle. In other words, the towers exceeded their limits.

Reply 215

username533239

Original post by Banishingboredom

Well the Daily Mail so close

please put that in OP then.

Reply 216

username247300

Original post by gateshipone

no, i posted the information in an earlier post, it could stand a plane traveling at 600 mph...

so, no, limits were not exceeded.

Reply 217

Pindar

Original post by gateshipone

If you think the Democrat and the Republican parties are "rival parties", you're crazy and know nothing about US politics.

Reply 218

Banishingboredom

Original post by King-Panther

the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.

The limits were exceeded in this case as well then in the size speed and force of the larger plane. You can never properly simulate these sorts of things anyway. The mosquito net design clearly didn't work so cannot be used as evidence that the buildings collapsed unnaturally.

Also watch the collapse again. It starts from just under the crash site. If it were to have been brought down by explosives they would have had to have been planted in that exact location before the plane hit, and there was no way they could have predicted exactly where each plane would hit.

Reply 219

f1mad

Original post by King-Panther

no, i posted the information in an earlier post, it could stand a plane traveling at 600 mph...

so, no, limits were not exceeded.

It was built to withstand.

It never said that, that would happen in practice. Was there an experiment/real-life simulation to hold such a claim as credible?

NO.

Ho hum.

Original post by King-Panther

exam monday, i'll be back at a later date.