I was about to ask you to star out that masked sweary then
Osama bin Laden is dead - no graphic/violent images.
- Thread starter dante6491
- Start date
Sorry I think you edited after I posted. Have you actually listened to his interview? I am about half way through, it's over an hr long.
He is willing to testify in front of a grand jury, he has names of those who are involved. I know it is easier to hope he is a nut because IF he is telling the truth, everything you have ever been led to believe has been lies upon lies. It's time to start looking at that as a possibility now.
I read the article, does he give names or any evidence or explains how they did it? The article doesn't.
If it involves demolition or missiles or anything similar he is a nut case doing it for fame/money or is just mental. The only slightly plausible CT is that America new it was going to happen, but again there is no evidence for it.
It always was a possibility nothings changed and unless he gives something concrete then it remains as that.
If it involves demolition or missiles or anything similar he is a nut case doing it for fame/money or is just mental. The only slightly plausible CT is that America new it was going to happen, but again there is no evidence for it.
It always was a possibility nothings changed and unless he gives something concrete then it remains as that.
Did you even read that full sentence, does he mention controlled demo or missiles? If so that makes him a Ct nut.
Does he actually give any details at all. Or just some general told me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,922
- Location
- Merseyside. UK
Why would that make him a nutcase? its very plausible that it was an inside job / false flag. Some of these ct's are silly or at least sound a bit far fetched but thats no reasons to label them all the same. I believe it was an inside job because of the way the buildings came down, yes ill say it, controlled demolition especially building 7 which had no structural damage at all, a few small fires on a few floors then suddenly it comes down while other buildings around it had been partly destroyed or sheared in half and were still standing, That's just one of the reasons and to be honest looking at it now it would be pointless to go into any more. I am just saying don't believe everything you are told, especially when it comes out the tv. Look into them for yourself and if you don't believe it then fine that's your right to do so, but don't look down your nose at others for having a different opinion.
It did have structural damage. Just go look at any number of photos. It was not controlled demo for a hole load of reason, which can be shown though the video and picture as well as things that happened before.
I don't and if you want to know why what you just read is bs, search for the old wtc7 and 9/11 threads and have a read.
I don't and if you want to know why what you just read is bs, search for the old wtc7 and 9/11 threads and have a read.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This is clear propaganda.
When the intelligence establishment force feeds the mainstream media information they do not need to supply any evidence and we are expected to accept information on the goodwill of the establishment. But when someone points out the truth they require all the evidence in the world.
When the intelligence establishment force feeds the mainstream media information they do not need to supply any evidence and we are expected to accept information on the goodwill of the establishment. But when someone points out the truth they require all the evidence in the world.
I've listened to about 45 mins so far, and as yet he hasn't mentioned missiles or controlled demolitions. He mentions many names of those 'directly' involved (eg. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz) and says he will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury, and also give the name of the general who confirmed 911 was a false flag operation. He is on record having said in ~2002 that 'Bin Laden is dead and it's known by the Whitehouse but they will only reveal it when it's required at some point in the future' and here we are now. It is also on record of other officials saying the same. Still, I don't think you will like a lot of what he says so probably best to dismiss him as a mental case... who still happens to work for the Department of Defense.
For a start it's not just one-man. I'm sure other leaders have seen the evidence they are not kicking up fuss. How would you determine if DNA results where true? You would just say they are made up.
What I want to know is does this bloke actually say anything, or is it just a general told me?
Says he will but who knows if he would, what you have there is an hour of nothing then, he doesn't actually say anything and nothing can be concluded. Just one man giving names out and no evidence or anything else and not even first hand. Can you see my problem with such people. There is nothing to go on. Dismiss him on he hasn't said anything and until he does how can we conclude anything, he knows full well it won't go to court.
Why kind of proof are you after exactly? He has already named those directly involved and this isn't just anyone of the street we are talking about here. Trying to imply he must be 'mental' without listening to a word he has said suggests you could never be convinced anyway.
I'd submit that the Israelis are one with the US up to and not a nanometer beyond what is needed to further Israels national interest.
Names aren't proof. You said he doesn't provide anything, I don't really fancy watching an hour of ramblings that can not be discussed. Where did I say he is mental. You've watched It I'm asking if he is saying anything that can be followed up on or verified. But you are saying it's just second Hand names from a general which he won't even name.
Some one can say I belief him, another goes I don't. That's all which can be discussed. He hasn't give any idea of what or how he's done it. His arguments aren't based on photos, facts or physics. There's just nothing to get your teeth into and is just speculation.
Last edited:
Hold on..obama was just giving a name out and no evidence or anything else can you see the same problem there?
Oh it's called hearsay in the US courts
George W Bush
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Qu
Not just a one man? who osama? what is he an inter dimensional being or something, you are not on about those conspiracy theories again are you Acid Hell? Next you will be trying to convince me that there is a massive decentralized and organization threat out there called "Al Quada" that is master minded by one man from a house on a hill in Pakistan. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
But this is not about al qaeda and there probably is a lot of terrorists out there that hate the US and the UK, whether they would classify themselves as part of "al qaeda" and under the command of osama is different matter entirely.
It is has been officially confirmed and it is on record that osama did not have anything to do with any of the terrorist attacks in the UK or USA. He was never wanted for that officially. They link him to the attacks via the "mastermind of the al qaeda" aspect.
Not just a one man? who osama? what is he an inter dimensional being or something, you are not on about those conspiracy theories again are you Acid Hell? Next you will be trying to convince me that there is a massive decentralized and organization threat out there called "Al Quada" that is master minded by one man from a house on a hill in Pakistan. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
But this is not about al qaeda and there probably is a lot of terrorists out there that hate the US and the UK, whether they would classify themselves as part of "al qaeda" and under the command of osama is different matter entirely.
It is has been officially confirmed and it is on record that osama did not have anything to do with any of the terrorist attacks in the UK or USA. He was never wanted for that officially. They link him to the attacks via the "mastermind of the al qaeda" aspect.
Hold on..obama was just giving a name out and no evidence or anything else can you see the same problem there?
Yes I can, but there's two things. We know a mission happened, we have the place, we hvpave the black hawk, we have the tweets and we have Iran confirming it and holding his wife and others. No other leaders are saying it didn't happen. So no it's not identical to other examples. Then you have how can you proof info that is given out. It's not like a picture of an engine and we can see if that engine is one of the available options on the suppliers lists.
Keep up, I'm not talking about Osama or the raid in that post. So a lot of wasted writing. Al-qeeda Is an umbrella name for varies Muslim terrorist groups.