One of the main fundaments of this conspiracy theory is, as I understand it, that OBL would understand he had nothing to gain from this attack. That’s outrageous. Surely OBL must be extremely happy about it, to the extent of punching the air and screaming “Yeah baby, YEAH!” (he is a football fan…).
Doesn’t pretty much everyone agree that it was an immensly successful attack in all ways? Not only because of the negative effects on USA, the effects (unilateral war) also crippled the UN and boosted the recruitment to extremist islamic organisations to unprecedented levels. And OBL himself is still alive, and assured a place in the (some) history books as the biggest Muslim freedom fighter ever.
Friday, June 21, more than nine months after the 9/11 attacks, the ABC “news magazine”, 20/20, hosted by Barbara Walters and John Miller, gave the cover-up of a group of Israelis caught cheering the attack on the WTC a booster shot.
ABC’s interview with the lady, referred to only as “Maria”, who witnessed the “suspicious” behavior, consisted of probably less than a minute of air-time. In this brief interview, Maria said, “They seemed to be taking a movie.” “The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background.”
ABC reported that what struck Maria were the expressions on the men’s faces. “They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange,” she said.
Yeah, I think it’s strange too. Not expressions on faces, but the idea of the behavior of the suspects initially being described as “cries of joy and mockery”, is now aired as “They were like happy, you know…” I would like to have seen the expression on the janitor’s face when saw 20/20’s cutting-room floor.
But yet, the witness found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. (Somebody call the cops!! “they were like happy, you know.”)
NOTE: 20/20 excerpts in “quote box”
Yeah, Sivan knows who the problem is.
Who in the world could think that the Israelis would have something to hide? All they did was just shut down the business and head back to Modern-day Israel, leaving cutomers in the lurch and not even bothering to turn off the utilities. Why, that’s just standard practice, isn’t it?
Oh well, if that’s the case, then foreign nationals coming into the United States to spy is acceptable?
I don’t think so.
And of course, an Israeli would never consider spying on the United States, afterall, we’re allies.
“Stupid and ridiculous.”, “The story is simply false.”
I am reminded of Shakespear; “Thou dost protest too much”.
Okay, no evidence of pre-knowledge. That still does not excuse the behavior. The behavior was reprehensible and casts an unfavorable light on our most beloved “ally”. And it is equally reprehensible for our so-called “free press” to intentionally kill an obvious newsworthy story for the benefit of a foreign interest.
The establishment media realizes that the reporting of such an incident could lead to the asking of some uncomfortable questions, such as, “How did five Israelis, who were here illegally, know what they were cheering for?” and could ultimately lead to many Americans objecting as to how their tax-dollars are being spent with regard to foreign aid. But, you can bet your last shekel that had it been a group of men caught celebrating the attack on America that the establishment media could link to, what they refer to as, a “right-wing extremist group”, it would still yet be a feature of the “nightly news”.
The FBI confiscated the suspects film and admitted that the suspects were smiling in the pictures, but 20/20 didn’t show it’s viewing audience any of the pictures or video. I suppose that ABC was prevented from showing the pictures for reasons of “national security”. Yeah, that’s it.
The story closed with this telltale exchange:
Ah, at last, we get to some truth. That is exactly what happened. ABC and 20/20, rather than objectively report a story, tried to “put an end to the controversy”.
Right, so ABC covered up the story…by reporting it.
So uh, Razorsharp your position is that Israeli agents hiredand/or financed the hijackers, convinced them to kill themselves in the attacks, and just in case there might not be enough imagery recorded of the incident, placed five agents in New York to operate one hand-held consumer video camera? If so, have you any evidence at all, other than five Israeli guys filming the burning World Trade Center, that would connect an Israeli intelligence organization with Mohammed Atta or any of the other hijackers? Just want to make sure I’m clear on what your presenting here.
While you’re at it, oh wise one, I’d appreciate it if you’d explain (in your own word, if you don’t mind) what you believe Israel’s objective was in orchestrating such an outrage.
Not that I subscribe to the theory but Israel would of course have some to gain from the 9/11 attack. The events moved USA closer to Israel and further from most of the world.
Perhaps you should put a little more effort into trying to comprehend what it is that you are reading, rather than focusing all of your effort on how you can refute something that happens to run contrary to your worldview.
I did not say that ABC covered up the story. My impression is that, from what was broadcasted by 20/20, it appears that ABC “tried to put an end to the controversy.”
Oh really, that’s my position? Would you please provide the quotes where I indicate my position is as such? I thought that my position was more along the lines of this:
BTW, sorry for the abundant typos in my previous post.
Look, I would never dispute that certain parties within the US would have something to gain by exploiting public reaction to the attacks. There’s certainly no question in my mind that the invasion of Iraq took place sooner than it might have if the 9/11 attacks had not occurred.
The problem here is that the posters who put forward the notion that the US and/or Israel facilitated the attack do so on the flimsiest of evidence, far less than actually exists, by their own admission, for the responsibility of an organization like al-Queda. This suggest to me theat the posters who do so have an aganda of their own, and that agenda is to try by whatever means necessary, to draw others into their own fantasies of an all-powerful cabal controlling everyones’ lives.
Hey, maybe some party other than al Queda actually planned and/or carried out the attack. But you’ve gotta start an investigation somewhere, and how would it be responsible for the investigators to simply ignore the main body of evidence indicating responsibility? OK, so it’s not airtight, but when is the evidence for any major operation for which no one has claimed direct responsibility ever airtight?
Would anyone like to argue that OBL’s organization had never carried out any previous attacks on US interests, or that OBL himself had not, more than once, stated a clear and abiding hatred for the US? I didn’t think so.
I’ll close by arguing that two of the central themes of this thread, IMO, are totally bogus.
OBL had nothing to gain by the WTC attacks: ridiculous on its face. OBL and other members of his organization have clearly stated, more than once, their support for the attacks and the economic and social effects of the attack were perfectly in line with OBL’s stated aims in opposing the US.
If OBL’s organization was responsible they would have said so in so many words, based on the history of previous terror attacks by other organizations. The problem here is that the audience for OBL’s statements is different. In the previous attacks cited, responsibility was usually claimed by anonymous parties through messages dropped for the attention of investigators or the governments where the targets were located.
By contrast, OBL’s organization, as I understand it, has rarely if ever communicated directly with representatives of the targets; I stand open for correction if I have this wrong. The tapes in which OBL clearly expressed support, if not responsibility for the attacks were aimed at an entirely different audience: potential adherents to his cause. For this audience, saying “we did it” was irrelevant; the intended message was “You could do it too. Come join us, or take action on your own”. Also, as long as OBL does not clearly claim responsibility, he and his organization can continue to decry the heavy-handed tactics of the US in the search for the guilty parties.
Now, if someone wants to argue that the US unreasonably rushed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq as a direct result of the WTC attack, you won’t get any argument outta me. But that’s not what’s being argued here. Despite their half-hearted weaseling, a couple of the posters here want very much to convince us that the US government and/or Israel were directly responsible for the WTC attack. I don’t think they have done so.
OK, I’m through with this travesty. Please carry on, paranoics.
I don’t know. I was asking you to clarify your position, or did you miss that part?
Seriously, post what you like, but please don’t complain that you’re being treated unfairly just because one person or another finds your arguments lack logic.
Admittedly, some of the posters in this thread may be proponents of the Great Unified Conspiracy Theory - if so, they haven’t made their case.
Nevertheless, simply saying that the Illuminati didn’t do the WTC is not proof that OBL did do it.
Even if we were to accept that OBL did do it, this doesn’t prove that there were not other big fish or elements of context involved, that we are now ignoring in our headlong rush to have one ideal guilty party.
It strikes me that the Conspiracy Theories have turned into ideal strawmen (if I only had a brain) - and somehow removed the need to apply critical thinking to the actual evidence presented of OBLs guilt.
The argument seems to be “You would have to be crazy to question OBLs sole and entire responsibility”
Why not debate the evidence or lack thereof ? I wouldn’t say OBL couldn’t possibly be behind it, simply that the case isn’t closed…
This is my current odds-on guess on why those five guys were cheering and videotaping themselves – not because they (or their government) planned the attacks, but because they knew (via pre-9/11 intel?) that this meant the full brunt of the United States would now be brought on against those responsible.
It’s one thing to say Israeli intelligence agents were tastelessly celebrating the 9/11 attacks; it’s another thing all together to say they were responsible for them. The 20/20 report seems to indicate the former, but doesn’t offer anything to support the latter.
Gosh, El_Kabong, you really do have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you.
I said that ABC gave the cover-up a booster shot. That means that the cover-up was on-going. The cover-up being that the establishment media had basically relegated the story to the memory hole. Trouble is, that pesky internet just wouldn’t let the story die. Enter 20/20 to “put an end to the controversy”. There, I’ve made it fairly simple. Understand now?
Now, for another more recent example of the “Ministry of Truth” using the “memory hole” to supress a newsworthy event whose storyline veered away from what is deemed acceptable for the “proles”.
Remember back in August, when Hemant Lakhani, a British citizen born in India, was arrested for smuggling shoulder-fired missles into the United States. That story just suddenly “vanished” from the headlines.
Turns out that the financier for the scheme to sell the missles to “prospective buyers” was a New Jersey gem dealer, Yehuda Abraham.
When Mr. Abraham was linked to the smuggling of shoulder-fired missles into the United States, the story went down the “memory hole”. Mr. Abraham is not a muslim.
The whole “conspiracy” element is a strawman . How did you make the Olympian leap from “there’s really never been any concrete evidence that OBL did it” to the “OMG it must be little Martians running the Zionist White House that did it…”???
How does wanting concrete eveidence (which STILL hasn’t been put forth in this forum or anywhere else IMHO) make one a conspiracy theorist??
A translated tape, subject to distortion, impersonation, and manipulation, is no evidence even in the same league as proof in this case. Remember that tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost, hundreds of billions of dollars in profit will be made, and there are many groups out there who would love to frame Bin Laden.
Is it a conspiracist theory to state that railroads and cheap frames are commonplace in the North American justice system?? Anywhere else on the planet???
People get framed every damn day for a lot less than 300 billion and a large chunk of the world’s oil supply, is there anybody that really thinks that framing OBL is impossible??
What in these questions (other than an a blatant attempt to ridicule a questioning viewpoint) would lead one to believe that this viewpoint involves a far-flung conspiracy theory??
Or is it perhaps that you believe that conspiracies don’t exist??
It’s one thing to say that OBL enjoyed the WTC attacks, it’s another to say that he “did it”.
Are you guys gonna smear the whole thread with useless conspiracy theory nonsense, or are you gonna present the proof that OBL was responsible? It seems that everyone is conspicously avoiding the issue. Sure I believe he did it, but I can’t prove it. Can anyone? If so , why hasn’t the proof been made public? Why hasn’t there been a conviction in some sort of INDEPENDENT international court?
I would just like to post this link that gives a transcript of one of those tapes.
Unfortunately I don’t speak nutbag so I have no idea if the translation is any good.(But if it is then the speech is basically a confession. He admits to sending the people that did it to the US but only he knew what the “mission” was.)
This would mean, then, that OBL was in contact with the hi-jackersf, are there any cell-phone records or other evidence to corroborate any of this ?
In fact he never actually refers directly to himself as the instigator in this widely quoted transcript, doesn’t state any information that we didn’t all already have by then, doesn’t give up any names that we didn’t already have etc. All he really does is clearly claim advance knowledge.
I can see having an opinion, and let’s face it, most of us are pretty comfortable with OBL as the guilty party,but wouldn’t everybody be more satisfied to see a thorough, open minded and very public investigation of what happened ?
Why is it that asking for evidence elicits such shrill responses ? If there are other guilty parties, I for one would like to see them brought to justice.
Bin Laden isn’t the planner, he’s the financer and leader.
We know that three members of the hijackers were Al Qaeda members. We know that bin Laden’s second in command planned the attacks. So we know it’s an Al Qaeda operation. That much is 99% certain.