Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Shocking Bin Laden Quote..
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 08:44 PM (459 Views)
stopsnitchin
Member Avatar

I know many of you had to have seen this, and im not sure if it was included in LCFC, but i was wathcing new world order facts again and i was paying more attention, the quote is truly shocking, and i remember when they didnt want to show the bin laden tapes because he could have had "secret codes or hand gestures" in them.

Posted Image

http://www.viewzone.com/osama.html

http://tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html

Quote:
 

I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself;


It's shocking because he sorta hints at the new world order/illuminati etc w/ the last line...
Edited by stopsnitchin, Jan 25 2008, 08:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shagata Ganai
Member Avatar
Multiple Criminal Theorist
He spoke more truth in that one communique than the regime gave us in years. This is not the guy. There is no possible explanation for this (tape), other than he was stating facts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

Shagata Ganai
Jan 23 2008, 08:58 PM
He spoke more truth in that one communique than the regime gave us in years. This is not the guy. There is no possible explanation for this (tape), other than he was stating facts.
He was lying? That explanation is plausible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sureshot
Member Avatar
Your glorious Loose Change Forum dictator...
Wow, good find mate. :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

exponent what would he gain from lying in his statements? Unlike most debunkers I don’t think lying for the sake of lying is a good explanation.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
People must still remember that Bin Laden had already been named by gwb as a military target before 9/11. OBL would have had no logical reason to increase his profile by orchestrating these events.

He was involved with the Bush family prior to Bush Snr taking office, so he was certainly privvy to what was going on behind the scenes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

darion
Jan 24 2008, 12:37 AM
exponent what would he gain from lying in his statements? Unlike most debunkers I don’t think lying for the sake of lying is a good explanation.

I don't know any debunker who has claimed 'lying for the sake of lying' is a good explanation, can you provide me with a quote to support your claim?

Bin Laden has many motivations to lie, he is already wanted in connection with other attacks and according to his statement he was prohibited from taking such actions while living in Afghanistan. Whether this is true or not I don't know, but it seems strange that people are so willing to accept his claims to innocence despite a history of violence against innocent civilians yet keen to accuse people of being part of a conspiracy to kill 3000 people with very little evidence.

What worries me more is this:
darion
 
e^n "the hijackers' entries on the passenger manifest, the DNA evidence found at either the pentagon or shanksville"
Thier names where never on the manifest and there was no DNA to refrence the DNA taken at those areas. e^n You lied.

I believe in this context I was referring to the hijackers who flew planes into WTC1 or 2 (I forget), if that is correct then the hijackers names were most certainly on the passenger manifests. What makes you think they were not? The Boston Globe published the seating plan I believe 2 days after the attack and all 4 manifests have been released.

I'm also interested in what exactly you're claiming about the DNA of the hijackers. I am aware that at least some was not matched to a known source, but that at least in the case of 77 (again I might be wrong) two of the samples not matched to any passenger but the hijackers had a brotherly relation which is consistent with the hijackers.

You have made the claim that I have lied about something, I would like to see you back this up in here or in another thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 04:21 AM
darion
Jan 24 2008, 12:37 AM
exponent what would he gain from lying in his statements? Unlike most debunkers I don’t think lying for the sake of lying is a good explanation.

I don't know any debunker who has claimed 'lying for the sake of lying' is a good explanation, can you provide me with a quote to support your claim?

Bin Laden has many motivations to lie, he is already wanted in connection with other attacks and according to his statement he was prohibited from taking such actions while living in Afghanistan. Whether this is true or not I don't know, but it seems strange that people are so willing to accept his claims to innocence despite a history of violence against innocent civilians yet keen to accuse people of being part of a conspiracy to kill 3000 people with very little evidence.

What worries me more is this:
darion
 
e^n "the hijackers' entries on the passenger manifest, the DNA evidence found at either the pentagon or shanksville"
Thier names where never on the manifest and there was no DNA to refrence the DNA taken at those areas. e^n You lied.

I believe in this context I was referring to the hijackers who flew planes into WTC1 or 2 (I forget), if that is correct then the hijackers names were most certainly on the passenger manifests. What makes you think they were not? The Boston Globe published the seating plan I believe 2 days after the attack and all 4 manifests have been released.

I'm also interested in what exactly you're claiming about the DNA of the hijackers. I am aware that at least some was not matched to a known source, but that at least in the case of 77 (again I might be wrong) two of the samples not matched to any passenger but the hijackers had a brotherly relation which is consistent with the hijackers.

You have made the claim that I have lied about something, I would like to see you back this up in here or in another thread.
Then why don't you show the FBI the error of their ways and force them to charge the dead guy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

mynameis
Jan 24 2008, 04:34 AM
Then why don't you show the FBI the error of their ways and force them to charge the dead guy.
I presume you're talking about Bin Laden? I have no idea why the FBI hasn't indicted him specifically for 911. I was under the impression that you didn't trust the FBI?

It gets quite confusing when you don't know exactly what the person you're replying to believes in, but if the FBI are in on the conspiracy, or even if a single high ranking agent is in on it. Why couldn't they simply have indicted Bin Laden or provided the level of evidence required for indictment?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mynameis
Member Avatar
Internet Jujitsu
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 04:37 AM
mynameis
Jan 24 2008, 04:34 AM
Then why don't you show the FBI the error of their ways and force them to charge the dead guy.
I presume you're talking about Bin Laden? I have no idea why the FBI hasn't indicted him specifically for 911. I was under the impression that you didn't trust the FBI?

It gets quite confusing when you don't know exactly what the person you're replying to believes in, but if the FBI are in on the conspiracy, or even if a single high ranking agent is in on it. Why couldn't they simply have indicted Bin Laden or provided the level of evidence required for indictment?
I would love to get a kick from seeing the trial held in absentia with the evidence they claim to have amassed against good ole Goldstein bin Laden.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

exponent
Jan 24 2008, 04:37 AM
mynameis
Jan 24 2008, 04:34 AM
Then why don't you show the FBI the error of their ways and force them to charge the dead guy.
I presume you're talking about Bin Laden? I have no idea why the FBI hasn't indicted him specifically for 911. I was under the impression that you didn't trust the FBI?

It gets quite confusing when you don't know exactly what the person you're replying to believes in, but if the FBI are in on the conspiracy, or even if a single high ranking agent is in on it. Why couldn't they simply have indicted Bin Laden or provided the level of evidence required for indictment?
the way your propagandist mind works is truly amazing.

the point is that because the FBI hasn't indicted him, and because the CIA let him go, by orders from the Frickin WHITE HOUSE, that it is obvious that there is a conspiracy here. It's not theory. It's fact.

If orders came from the white house to let someone go, then that is a frickin conspiracy, right?

You're trying to twist the logic of what's going on here. We're not saying that the FBI or CIA is trustworthy. WE're saying, "If they were trustworthy and forthright, we would have gotten indictments and arrests by now. And since we haven't, they aren't."

I think that mynameis was trying to get you to admit that if they were trustworthy, that you and people like yourself, should be insisting on these indictments. That is, if the official story is so undebunkable as you claim it is.

Instead the "boogeyman" is left to linger so that we may fear him.

He serves a purpose for the globalists. And apparently, so do you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

look-up
 
the way your propagandist mind works is truly amazing.

the point is that because the FBI hasn't indicted him, and because the CIA let him go, by orders from the Frickin WHITE HOUSE, that it is obvious that there is a conspiracy here. It's not theory. It's fact.

What exactly are you referring to here? The only thing I can think of is the plane that left the US shortly after 911 but that had nothing to do with Bin Laden himself, it was carrying members of the Bin Laden family?

look-up
 
You're trying to twist the logic of what's going on here. We're not saying that the FBI or CIA is trustworthy. WE're saying, "If they were trustworthy and forthright, we would have gotten indictments and arrests by now. And since we haven't, they aren't."

You can't say "they would have arrested him if they were trustworthy" as that implies that arresting him is a task that cannot be failed. Regardless I honestly have no idea why he's not indicted specifically for 911, I have no idea what the FBI considers "hard evidence" but my point is that if they are as untrustworthy as you believe, what specifically has stopped them indicting him? It seems to be a bit of a contradiction that they're not trustworthy because he's not indicted, but if they were untrustworthy there's no reason for them not to indite him that I can see. If you could suggest a reason I would appreciate it.

look-up
 
I think that mynameis was trying to get you to admit that if they were trustworthy, that you and people like yourself, should be insisting on these indictments. That is, if the official story is so undebunkable as you claim it is.

I don't think any story is 'undebunkable', simply that it is the best supported and arguably the only complete theory about 911.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
silven

I cant find a reason for him to lie.. If he is a terrorist why would he lie about 9/11. It would be the same for an architect if he build the largest tower in the world then denying building it..

Last I remembered terrorist like to claim terrorist acts.. ^o)


Bin laden is not even wanted for 9/11 that should be enough for everybody to know he had nothing to do with it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mumin

And Bush, himself, stated that he wasn't interested in going after Bin Laden.

If he was supposedly the mastermind of the largest act of terrorism on American soil, wouldn't every federal agency be "interested in going after" him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Edit: "If he's alive at all..."
Edited by Mumin, Jan 25 2008, 10:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Guess who were the first demanding a new investigation...


Quote:
 
and i remember when they didnt wat to show the bin ladent apes because he could have had "secret codes or hand gestures" in them.


Yes, that was strange, given that they do not seem to care about, instead they enhance the videos and translate missing parts, and make a lot of money out of it, too.

Also strange that they never have been accused of making profits from the 9/11 attacks by the JREF community, as people of the truth movement have been producing their own movies and not spreading terrorist propaganda.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply