The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Listen Pigeon I've had enough of this now. I'll come back and argue with you about the assertion that Islam is against the killing of innocent people later, but this is just going round in circles as you're not taking anything we say on board.
Original post by Algorithm69
'All' lol. You mean a tiny minority. A minority so dissatisfied and yet seem to be unable to provide their own peer-reviewed articles explaining the towers could not have collapsed without controlled explosions. Anyway, see my previous post for your further research.


all that are presented with the evidence. like the architect said, its damming to the country, so im sure some just keep quiet.

Well, you know what happens when you assume. Did that other guy you posted publish a peer-reviewed article explaining his findings? Can you link it to me, because I'd honestly love to see a credible source proving your claims right. I'm ready to be wrong.


here are a few

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Richard&authorName=Gage


I don't know what that means.


read it again


Actually, I've provided credible evidence. A peer-reviewed article from a respectable journal, and now many others. It is you, it seems, who have failed to provide any credible evidence, just speculation, tenuous evidence, assumptions, your own baseless opinions, and the opinions of a tiny minority of the engineering community, which are irrelevant on their own. Peer-review is where scientific opinions are won, not on conspiracy websites or news interviews.


you haven't provided evidence that hasn't been debunked.i provided over 100 articles.

i've provided you the link above.. how about you attack his arguments.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Banishingboredom
Listen Pigeon I've had enough of this now. I'll come back and argue with you about the assertion that Islam is against the killing of innocent people later, but this is just going round in circles as you're not taking anything we say on board.


i've debunked everything you've said. insulting me is ad hominem, a sure sign you've lost, accept the truth.
Pigeon you've debunked nothing. Now fly off and s**t all over someone else's thread please
Not convinced, no substantial evidence whatsoever that it was an inside job.

A couple pages back there was a misconception that the steel structure had to melt to fail?: not the case, the structure weakened due to concentrated heat lowering the yield strength, fracture toughness and introduced thermal stresses. The plane itself plus the culmination of the already impacted floors results in much greater localised loading and the severing of much of the existing structure concentrated the existing loads (removing even a small percent of a supporting area can concentrate stresses much, much more). Once the structure in the area of the fire collapsed, the subsequent floors were at least ten times too weak to prevent further floor collapses. The building's architects claimed to have designed for impact (which it did) but their claim that it could withstand the ensuing fire to an already damaged structure were not true and not substantiated. This kind of prediction is not even possible with today's simulation models and computing power.
Original post by King-Panther
how about you attack the argument. i could say the same about your sources.


I am attacking your argument. I'm saying you have no argument. You have no credible evidence. I do, and they completely contradict your views. Your 'sources' up there appear to be a huge list of newspaper articles, news interviews, and articles appearing on conspiracy websites. It has no rhyme or reason. You just posted a wall of text without even reading what it was. I actually took the time to select my sources (WHICH ARE PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES) and even posted the short conclusion to one. My sources were a Haiku compared to your mess. If there are journal articles in that mess that provides evidence for your position, find them and show me. I've done you that courtesy.

The only reason you posted that was a weak attempt to overwhelm me with a tl:dr fallacy. It's the same thing over and over. I ask you to provide credible evidence, you keep providing crap over and over. That is the sign of someone losing a debate.

Original post by King-Panther


all that are presented with the evidence. like the architect said, its damming to the country, so im sure some just keep quiet.


Baseless speculation. No evidence. Typical of conspiracy theories. Next.



Not peer-reviewed articles. Evidence of nothing. Next.

Original post by King-Panther
read it again


Just did. If you're sure there are plenty of journals, post them. As of yet you have not. Next.

Original post by King-Panther
you haven't provided evidence that hasn't been debunked.i provided over 100 articles.


Yes I have. I've posted many journal articles providing evidence against your position. You have provided a wall of text containing nothing credible that I can see. Next.

Original post by King-Panther
i've provided you the link above.. how about you attack his arguments.


I've already provided a 2008 peer-reviewed article, with its conclusion, stating that the controlled explosion 'hypothesis' (it isn't actually a coherent idea) is a fantasy. Do you have a peer-reviewed article saying a controlled demolition does fit the evidence?
Reply 166
Not really sure if it was an inside job myself, but if anyone is wondering why America would do such a thing to their own country, Google: Operation Northwoods.
Sometimes, its more than their effort they waste.
Reply 168
Original post by Banishingboredom
...but this is just going round in circles as you're not taking anything we say on board.


Original post by f1mad
There's nothing to attack.

It's a circular argument; I'm not going to waste my time.


You should've realised that when the thread began :wink:.

Don't waste your time.


I don't really buy the conspiracy theories flying around but anyone with properly functioning eyes can tell they are not the same person.
Good old Blighty :smile:
Reply 171
Original post by King-Panther
a professional can distinguish between a real and fake photo.... but why not give us this chance, they haven't provided any evidence but people like you have just accepted it.

i wouldn't know how he died, but according the people in the government, he died 10 years ago, what do you have to say about that?


I have nothing to say about that, as he released video tapes which consider current events, so unless he can predict the future...he was alive
Reply 172
Omfg i read this thread and now i just watched 1 hour of 9/11 videos and i need to work **** all of you conspiracy ****s
Original post by Banishingboredom
I suppose the moon landing was fake


Don't even get me started; my friend thinks that. He also thinks that aliens built the pyramids :teehee:

He has a somewhat compelling argument (on occasion), but at the same time I think he just likes the fantastical elements of alternative explanations.
Original post by King-Panther
"Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...q.iraqtimeline


Guardian and also 1.2m deaths? Try around 100,000.
Original post by King-Panther
indeed, a lot of articles of both sides.

Spoiler



He asked for peer reviewed studies etc, not a list of news reports which do nothing but speculate.
Not sure if you guys saw this yet.

Wired details declassified documents

Recently declassified documents from the SEAL raid show how out-of-control and worried OBL was about al-Qaida's image. They point out in the article that, ironically, OBL was just as concerned about protecting the lives of innocent muslims as the US is. He emphasized that their main focus should always be killing Americans whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Some interesting points if you don't feel like reading the whole article:
-Drone attacks scare the hell out of al-Qaida operatives
-Iran and OBL never worked together. In fact, al-Qaida had issues with Iran.
-OBL frequently watched American news channels to see what was being reported. The most interesting part of this to me is that he recognized the biased news channels and focused on ones that weren't as outrageous. Here's a quote from wired:

Bin Laden wasn’t just a terrorist. He was a narcissist. Obsessed with his image, he dyed his grey beard black before filming propaganda videos. And however much he hated America, he and his deputies were positively obsessed how they came across in American media.

“We should also look for an American channel that can be close to being unbiased, such as CBS, or other channel that has political motives that make it interested in broadcasting the point of view of al- Mujahidin,” bin Laden wrote shortly before his death. “Then, we can send to the channel the material that we want the Americans to see. You can ask brother Azzam about the channel that you should send the tape to and let me know your opinion and his.”

“Brother Azzam” is bin Laden’s California-bred (and ex-metalhead) media deputy, Adam Gadahn. Gadahn tracked the press like he worked for Fishbowl DC. Fox News will “die in anger,” he predicted. CNN “seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others.” And he fell out of love with MSNBC.

“I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit,” Gadahn observed, “but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists Keith Olberman [sic] and Octavia Nasser [sic] the Lebanese because they released some statements that were open for argument.” Nasr was actually fired from CNN after seeming to praise Hezbollah. (“It seems she is a Shia,” Gadahn speculated.)

Bin Laden’s U.S. media diet even got occasionally eggheaded. To refute the idea that the U.S. was on the side of the angels during the Arab Spring, bin Laden suggested reading “the RAND Center publications, especially the books ‘Civil and Democratic Islam,’ and ‘Building Moderate Muslim Networks,’” since the monographs “emphasize that the US’s interests are with secularists and reformists because they are the true allies.”

All this media obsession was meant to protect al-Qaida’s brand. But the group’s own offshoots kept trashing it. A flunky wrote to bin Laden about the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq: “They said Abu Hamzah is much more bloodthirsty and more enthusiastic about [killing], is tyrannical in his dealings with others, and has no patience for anyone who disagrees with him, etc.” Much easier to attack Fox News than rein in bloodthirsty terrorists who thought they were only following in bin Laden’s footsteps.
What's with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories? Seriously: if you were going to engineer a false terrorist attack, wouldn't you make it look slightly more convincing? The only reason that the towers fell was the terrorists got lucky. I find that a lot easier to believe than the alternative, which is that the Illuminati in charge of America (that is, some of the most intelligent and experienced people on the planet with access to the best information) were stupid enough to blow up a building in plain sight of an entire city, and target towers which were specifically designed to prevent that exact occurence from happening.
Original post by thisisnew
Guardian and also 1.2m deaths? Try around 100,000.


I've provided evidence, you've provided non.

in regards to your other post, the list is full of articles, documentaries, books, ect..

gog and magog.
Original post by King-Panther
I've provided evidence, you've provided non.

in regards to your other post, the list is full of articles, documentaries, books, ect..

gog and magog.


Well first of all, your link is broken and secondly, since when was a quote from the Guardian considered 'evidence'? Only in your deluded world. In the actual article, it quotes the opinion [which in terms of realpolitik, we all know anyway] of a generally anti-Bush banker and as for the number of deaths, it quotes estimates which have been extrapolated and they were carried out by polling organizations. IBC is far my credible and reasonable. If you want to remain credible, I'd stop parroting stupid myths such as the >1m death toll and posting the same pictures you got from 9/11 truther websites in place of your own opinion and argument.

As for your big copy-pasta list, the vast majority of it is links to news articles and some of the links even oppose your view, such as an article by Jim Hoffman.

Quick Reply

Latest