Was Osama Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

[CountOrlok]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that classified[133] evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the September 11 attacks is clear and irrefutable.[134] The UK Government reached a similar conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11 attacks, although the government report noted that the evidence presented is not necessarily sufficient to prosecute the case.[135]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_b...ber_11_attacks

The only evidence is his supposed 'confession' in a number of bad quality videos. One of those videos he doesn't even look like Osama Bin Laden, it could be anybody dressed up to look like him. That's not stating a conspiracy theory, it's just common sense. Would such evidence hold up in a proper trial?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Yes.

And again go here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=367431

 

[CountOrlok]

Yes.

And again go here:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=367431

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Wrong.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

Repeating it won't make it so. There is more than enough evidence that he was, despite you needing it to be more.

 

[CountOrlok]

Wrong.

Where have I posted anything about a conspiracy theory?

 

[Lord]

Yes it had, this is one of the most popular conspiracy theories in fact. If you believe it to be true or not, that is up to you, but it's still a conspiracy theory.

 

[CountOrlok]

Repeating it won't make it so. There is more than enough evidence that he was, despite you needing it to be more.

What evidence? Why hasn't it been de-classified? Why then does the UK government say "the evidence presented is not necessarily sufficient to prosecute the case".

 

[CountOrlok]

Yes it had, this is one of the most popular conspiracy theories in fact. If you believe it to be true or not, that is up to you, but it's still a conspiracy theory.

Why is it a conspiracy theory? I'm only asking questions and looking at the evidence, not coming up with any 'theories'.

 

[KevanG]

Let's see, numerous news agencies both networked and independent, multiple governments including the USA, Canada, and a large amount of others, various world wide security agencies including interpol, the CIA and various others and Al-Qaeda itself have all verified through numerous sources both named and unnamed that he was part of it.

And whadda you got? A wiki article?

 

[CountOrlok]

Let's see, numerous news agencies both networked and independent, multiple governments including the USA, Canada, and a large amount of others, various world wide security agencies including interpol, the CIA and various others and Al-Qaeda itself have all verified through numerous sources both named and unnamed that he was part of it.

And whadda you got? A wiki article?

I'm not interested in unverified claims. Only cold, hard evidence.

And what's wrong with using a wiki article?

 

[KevanG]

Would you like the CIA to come to your door and let your rummage through their database just to prove a point?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Not even a wiki article. Basically a sentence from a wiki article that he's taking out of context to infer a different meaning than what it was intended.

Count Orlok, you're new here. A few posters now have told you where to go with that crap. If you continue to be stubborn and insist that you know better than everyone else, you're not going to last long. Personally, I could care less. The fact is, that thread is suited for this discussion. People in the conspiracy thread can talk about 9/11 trutherism or whatever floats their boat, and while I don't agree with it (and even find some of it offensive) I won't mess with you in there. But don't be cute and try to say that OBL not being the mastermind of 9/11 is not a conspiracy theory, and try to pass it of as legitimate discussion.

 

[CountOrlok]

Would you like the CIA to come to your door and let your rummage through their database just to prove a point?

You mean would the CIA want me rummaging through their database? That's not the point. The point is, if they are going to make such a big claim, as in accusing someone of such a great crime as this, then they should present evidence to back up their claims. They are, after all, supposed to be public servants. And they also need to justify why they took the actions that they did.

 

[KevanG]

What evidence do you have that he didn't do it? Are you suggesting he was an entirely innocent party in the venture?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I'm not interested in unverified claims. Only cold, hard evidence.

Sure. You're a regular Bob Woodward.


I bet you actually know very little about 9/11, the investigations into it, US foreign policy that led to or resulted from it, or anything beyond media and internet osmosis, and what you picked up from a few fringe websites or radio hosts. You just want attention.

 

[CountOrlok]

Not even a wiki article. Basically a sentence from a wiki article that he's taking out of context to infer a different meaning than what it was intended.

Ok, I'll take it directly from the source:

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....eptember-11-attacks-culpability-document-3682

Count Orlok, you're new here. A few posters now have told you where to go with that crap. If you continue to be stubborn and insist that you know better than everyone else, you're not going to last long. Personally, I could care less. The fact is, that thread is suited for this discussion. People in the conspiracy thread can talk about 9/11 trutherism or whatever floats their boat, and while I don't agree with it (and even find some of it offensive) I won't mess with you in there. But don't be cute and try to say that OBL not being the mastermind of 9/11 is not a conspiracy theory, and try to pass it of as legitimate discussion.

I never claimed that OBL was not the mastermind of 9/11. I am merely questioning the claim that he was.

I'll leave it up to the mods if they think this thread is out of line.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Hopefully it's locked or wiped. I can't imagine a mod letting this mess of a thread stay open.

 

[CountOrlok]

What evidence do you have that he didn't do it? Are you suggesting he was an entirely innocent party in the venture?

I don't have evidence he didn't do it. The principle of law states that a party is innocent until proven guilty.

Sure. You're a regular Bob Woodward.


I bet you actually know very little about 9/11, the investigations into it, US foreign policy that led to or resulted from it, or anything beyond media and internet osmosis, and what you picked up from a few fringe websites or radio hosts. You just want attention.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm just trying to have a legitimate discussion.

 

[KevanG]

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.

That means that it is not attempting to make the document submittable for the courts. It means that it's just information gathered. It would have to be in a totally different format before being able to be accepted by the courts. The information contained inside the document states that all evidence points towards him being the culprit.

Conclusion
74. The attacks of the 11 September 2001 were planned and carried out by Al Qaida, an organisation whose head is Usama Bin Laden. That organisation has the will, and the resources, to execute further attacks of similar scale. Both the United States and its close allies are targets for such attacks. The attack could not have occurred without the alliance between the Taleban and Usama Bin Laden, which allowed Bin Laden to operate freely in Afghanistan, promoting, planning and executing terrorist activity.

So... yeah.

 

[CountOrlok]

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.

That means that it is not attempting to make the document submittable for the courts. It means that it's just information gathered. It would have to be in a totally different format before being able to be accepted by the courts. The information contained inside the document states that all evidence points towards him being the culprit.



So... yeah.

Unsupportable conclusion based on statements and claims with no evidence, that wouldn't stand in a court of law.

An argumentative essay, maybe, but not a court of law.

 

[KevanG]

You didn't actually read it did you?

 

[The Endless]

Cue Twilight Zone theme

 

[SuperFerret]

Totally a conspiracy theory, and an outlandish one at that. What does it matter anyway? The guy's dead now, unless you don't believe that either.

 

[KevanG]

It's funny that people who have no idea how to do the math on structural integrity, heat tolerance and such always say the math doesn't add up for the planes on 9/11 but if you actually know what you're doing then it actually does. A friend of mine is an engineer and he got annoyed one day with the 'truthers' going on with terribly incorrect math and he set out around 3/4ths of the math for how the towers would fall and why and asked if anyone could understand any of it. They all called BS on him and said he was making it all up. He asked for mathematical proofs that showed otherwise and they refused to produce them just going on and on about it being a coverup.