The Truth Behind 9/11

[Albert Tatlock]

What don't you understand?

Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake??

simples.

 

Ah, well, I don't subscribe to tin-hat fantasies, so you'll have to forgive me for not guessing which one you're currently subscribing to.

 

what are you on about now Slim? more bollox?? i have never subscribed to anything called a "tin hat fantasy" either??

You'll get used to the 'Tin-Hat' allegation, especially in this thread. Everytime Slim can't back something up - 'oooh...oooh' - he drags it out of the cupboard.

 

Personally, I don't think Slim's for real anyway - a conspiracy thread in itself, someday.

[Slim]

Albert, care to substantiate that? I've backed up what I've said, even providing quotes.

 

what are you on about now Slim? more bollox?? i have never subscribed to anything called a "tin hat fantasy" either??

 

I'm referring to your suggestions that the WTC collapse was rigged, that it was a government conspiracy and that there are 'umpteen fake' osama bin laden videos.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, care to substantiate that? I've backed up what I've said, even providing quotes.

Too damn right I won't.

 

I refer to the dim and distant past of this thread somewhere around pages 30 to 33.

[Chinahand]

Stevie - you claim your not a tin-hatter - where are you on my conspiracy scale - or if you views don't apply, explain why they don't apply.

 

Now how about a sliding scale of conspiracy.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave ... hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but [rather than stopping it] the conspiracy actively helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

[stevie]

Which Bin Laden contradicts what Cook said? Was it actually him, or was it ones of the videos of Bin Laden that have proved to be fake??

 

simples.

"Simples" is it? Well which Bin Laden videos have been "proved to be fake"? Are we going to have more bollox about rings and such like - if you think that is proof you're niave beyond belief - oh we are in the 911 thread - says alot.

 

Well obviously all must be fake, seen as Pakistan have held his death certificate since 2002?

 

but anyways......

 

19/11/2002: United States intelligence officials have concluded that a recently recorded audiotape that was broadcast on an Arab television network (Al Jazeera) last week is genuine and contains the voice of Osama bin Laden, apparently ending months of debate in the government over whether the elusive terrorist leader is still alive. [New York Times]

 

30/11/2002: Scientists in Switzerland say they are almost certain that a recent audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is a fake.

The tape, delivered to the Arab satellite television channel al-Jazeera earlier this month, appeared to provide the first concrete evidence that Bin Laden is still alive because it mentioned recent attacks on western targets. (Guardian)

 

but then, probably due to western pressure......

 

2/12/2003: Swiss researchers who last November analysed a tape attributed to Osama bin Laden say they won’t be scrutinising the latest recording broadcast by the Arabic television network, Al-Jazeera. The Swiss analysts said the previous tape was almost certainly faked, despite US claims to the contrary. The Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence (Idiap) in Martigny told swissinfo on Wednesday that it had no intention of analysing the latest tape. [swissinfo]

 

and China, no offence here but.... you're getting more like Rog every time i read one of your posts..... i seem to remember you saying last year you would agree there was something wrong with 9/11 if the footage of the BBC reporting the fall of the tower, before it actually happened, was proved real? So as you know, the footage was real.... the BBC did actually report it before it happened. Yet i never seen a change? as soon as it was proved real you were then saying it was some sort of mistake by the BBC!! So i can't really take too much of what you say in any form of seriousness? you are a sheep. or you are in so much denial you don't think our governments can lie to us?? whatever it is.... i hope you wake up soon. you don't seem too bad a chap.....

[stevie]

Albert, care to substantiate that? I've backed up what I've said, even providing quotes.

 

what are you on about now Slim? more bollox?? i have never subscribed to anything called a "tin hat fantasy" either??

 

I'm referring to your suggestions that the WTC collapse was rigged, that it was a government conspiracy and that there are 'umpteen fake' osama bin laden videos.

 

do you have to subscribe somewhere to have these views then??

[stevie]

Stevie - you claim your not a tin-hatter - where are you on my conspiracy scale - or if you views don't apply, explain why they don't apply.

 

Now how about a sliding scale of conspiracy.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave ... hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but [rather than stopping it] the conspiracy actively helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

 

ha ha are you really this nuts?? you've made a conspiracy scale??

[Slim]

do you have to subscribe somewhere to have these views then??

 

Subscribe; to adopt as a belief.

 

The scale's crucial, pick a number.

[Albert Tatlock]

Stevie - you claim your not a tin-hatter - where are you on my conspiracy scale - or if you views don't apply, explain why they don't apply.

 

Now how about a sliding scale of conspiracy.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave ... hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but [rather than stopping it] the conspiracy actively helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

I think your scale is somewhat flawed...mainly because I'd say I think on your scale I am bordering on '2' to '3' overall on 911 in general intelligence community terms, but that it is entirely possible that a very small group could have operated outside the general intelligence/authority community to make things far worse - taking out WTC 7 for example, so that small group's involvement would actually take me up to a 6. What I am saying is that your scale seems to go from 'no involvement' to 'full involvement' sort of thing, missing out 'partial and independent involvement', if you see what I mean. Unless I have read it incorrectly.

[Chinahand]

30/11/2002: Scientists in Switzerland say they are almost certain that a recent audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is a fake.

The tape, delivered to the Arab satellite television channel al-Jazeera earlier this month, appeared to provide the first concrete evidence that Bin Laden is still alive because it mentioned recent attacks on western targets. (Guardian)

Go to actually read what IDIAP said about their analysis. LINK1 LINK2

 

US experts who have heard or processed the tape usually support the conclusion by US law enforcement officials that it probably is bin Laden speaking. However, it is also usually agreed that the latest tape will likely never be fully authenticated because its poor quality defies complete analysis by the best voice/linguist experts or the most sophisticated voice print technology. Although IDIAP fully agrees with these statements, it was decided, mainly motivated by pure scientific curiosity, to go ahead with the experiment and see what conclusion our state-of-the-art speaker authentication system would reach.

 

According to the system, this last recording would thus not be attributed to bin Laden. However, on top of the limitations already discussed above, it can be seen that this point also falls very close to the decision threshold, which further decreases the confidence we can have in this result.

 

The work reported here was mainly motivated by pure scientific curiosity, also aiming at showing the possibilities and limitations offered by automatic speaker authentication system in non-optimal conditions (typically, noisy environments and limited amount of recordings). While this study does not permit us to draw any definite (statistically significant) conclusions, it nonetheless shows that there is serious room for doubt, and that it is also difficult to agree with some US officials saying that it is 100% sure that it is bin Laden. When addressing a problem with a scientific perspective (as opposed to a political approach), one has to be ready to also accept the uncertainty of the results. Even if the confidence of these results can be boosted by exploiting multiple automatic systems and multiple human expert opinions, it will never be possible to authenticate the latest bin Laden tape with 100% assurance.

[Chinahand]

Albert - I'm talking about the conspirators (whoever they are) not the intelligence community generally.

 

If you believe a group of conspirators actively planned to blow up WTC7 under the cover of 911 then you are basically at 8.

 

In order to do this they will have had to have actively known about the attacks, worked to ensure they happened and then gone away and prepared there side of the attacks - preparing the demolition of WTC7.

 

An awful lot of evidence is against this - companies doing drilling and subsidance work had siesmic readers in the area - an explosion causing a collapse has a very different seismic plot than just a collapse - those plots exist - its already been discussed here before.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

and China, no offence here but.... you're getting more like Rog every time i read one of your posts..... i seem to remember you saying last year you would agree there was something wrong with 9/11 if the footage of the BBC reporting the fall of the tower, before it actually happened, was proved real? So as you know, the footage was real.... the BBC did actually report it before it happened. Yet i never seen a change? as soon as it was proved real you were then saying it was some sort of mistake by the BBC!! So i can't really take too much of what you say in any form of seriousness? you are a sheep. or you are in so much denial you don't think our governments can lie to us?? whatever it is.... i hope you wake up soon. you don't seem too bad a chap.....

 

But as Slim has said, there is a difference between finding coincidence and seeing things that don't seem to make sense and then come to the conclusion that the US government planned some or all of this.

 

Yes, governments can and do lie. So what? To then claim that top politicians, government officials, demolition engineers, military men in the Pentagon, people in the media, the aircraft industry and the media are all part of this conspiracy theory just makes those who believe these conspiracy theories look very naive and quite dim. It is just far too unlikely to consider it to be true. And given the great unlikelihood, it then becomes, in my opinion, a very silly and wasteful pursuit to have to investigate any possible government involvement.

[stevie]

and China, no offence here but.... you're getting more like Rog every time i read one of your posts..... i seem to remember you saying last year you would agree there was something wrong with 9/11 if the footage of the BBC reporting the fall of the tower, before it actually happened, was proved real? So as you know, the footage was real.... the BBC did actually report it before it happened. Yet i never seen a change? as soon as it was proved real you were then saying it was some sort of mistake by the BBC!! So i can't really take too much of what you say in any form of seriousness? you are a sheep. or you are in so much denial you don't think our governments can lie to us?? whatever it is.... i hope you wake up soon. you don't seem too bad a chap.....

 

But as Slim has said, there is a difference between finding coincidence and seeing things that don't seem to make sense and then come to the conclusion that the US government planned some or all of this.

 

Yes, governments can and do lie. So what? To then claim that top politicians, government officials, demolition engineers, military men in the Pentagon, people in the media, the aircraft industry and the media are all part of this conspiracy theory just makes those who believe these conspiracy theories look very naive and quite dim. It is just far too unlikely to consider it to be true. And given the great unlikelihood, it then becomes, in my opinion, a very silly and wasteful pursuit to have to investigate any possible government involvement.

 

And Slim would be very correct in saying that, were my conclusions based on a single lie or an apparent coincidence.... but they are certainly not based on any single act.

 

I think people who don't see what went on are very naive and dim

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think people who don't see what went on are very naive and dim

 

We see what went on; we see the strange events and things that are curious, especially in regards to the demolition question from the perspective of a layman. But then we are not willing to make a jum into the fantastic and blame a government, as we know what that would involve. It wouldn't just be a conspiracy, it would be some massive, complicated plan involving at least a thousand people from different government and independent organisations all willing to go allow with it, all knowing when and where to act, and all trusting each other to keep their mouths closed about it. And for what? Chasing people and occupying AFGHANISTAN?

[stevie]

I think people who don't see what went on are very naive and dim

 

We see what went on; we see the strange events and things that are curious, especially in regards to the demolition question from the perspective of a layman. But then we are not willing to make a jum into the fantastic and blame a government, as we know what that would involve. It wouldn't just be a conspiracy, it would be some massive, complicated plan involving at least a thousand people from different government and independent organisations all willing to go allow with it, all knowing when and where to act, and all trusting each other to keep their mouths closed about it. And for what? Chasing people and occupying AFGHANISTAN?

 

ha ha chasing people and occupying afganistan?? is that all that has come out of this then?

 

maybe look at events the day BEFORE 9/11???????