"Who had the means, motive, and opportunity" to carry out 9/11?

Discussion in '9/11' started by cjnewson88, Jan 29, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stolen/mistaken identities was covered in other U.K. media, like the Guardian and Telegraph, and it was covered in the U.S. too. So you've now admitted, without actually saying it, that you believe that the cases reported by the worldwide media about this and the people they spoke about are nothing but liars. You, a non-U.S. citizen, would rather believe the U.S. Government on this matter.

    Headline: FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities
    http://articles.latimes.com/print/2001/sep/21/news/mn-48189

    Headline: Revealed: the men with stolen identities
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html

    You ignored my question about calling the BBC. Have you called the Telegraph and inquired about their interviews with the men?

    Headline: Some Hijackers' Identities Uncertain
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...certain/028c1a82-1172-4692-9bf9-85a71e5f63f4/

    Headline: False identities mislead FBI
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september112

    Headline: THE HIJACKERS; Confusion Over Names Clouds Identities of Attackers on Jets
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/w...n-over-names-clouds-identities-attackers.html

    Headline: Suicide Hijackers Hid Behind Stolen Arab Identities
    http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/londontimes092001.html

    Headline: Morocco: Dead Saudi Hijack Suspect Resurfaces, Denies Involvement
    http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html
    Since you seem to know your way around the U.S. FOIA process, perhaps you should contact the F.B.I. and inquiry about the interview they had with the hijacker they named.

    Headline: Another Saudi ‘hijacker’ turns up in Tunis
    http://web.archive.org/web/20030208...com/Article.asp?ID=9454&ArY=2001&ArM=10&ArD=1
    There's a key word there at the end, CJ. Skepticism. Where is yours? Have you called Arab News about this?

    You said you searched for information about this, CJ. That appears to be nothing more than a lie at this point. Care to comment? Or do you wish to continue the behavior you've been strangely exhibiting for the last few days about this topic?
     
  2. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The links you have provided is nothing I have not already seen. It's just repeats of the same story.

    It should be noted that the FBI did not release its full photo list of hijackers until September 27th. Their list released on September 14th was names only. You can see it here. All your stories you have linked were posted well before that date. The ones who keep coming up most frequently:

    Waleed M al-Shehri - Note that next to his name lists no less than 7 possible birth dates, 3 possible residences, and believing he may be a pilot. So someone in the middle east thought it was him and spoke out, too bad he didn't look at the name properly. The hijackers name was Waleed Mohammed al-Shehri. The man who came forward saying he was alive is Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri. Not the same person.

    Abdulaziz Al Omari - Again, two possible birth days, one for a 28 year old and one for a 22 year old. The 22 year old was the terrorist. The 28 year old is the pilot being interviewed. Again, the photo list released by the FBI on September 27th shows the correct Abdulaziz Al Omari. It's pretty obvious to see the difference between the two:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Saeed al-Ghamdi - The claim is that a man named Saeed al-Ghamdi living in Saudi Arabia was outraged when his "name, place, date of birth and occupation" were released to the world as a hijacker. Except again if you look at the list the FBI released on September 14th, they list no date of birth, no place of birth, no occupation, no nationality, just a name and a possible residence in Delray Beach, Florida. Again, this is before the FBI released the photo list on September the 27th. Not the same guy.

    Again, it can't be emphasised enough that all these 'hijackers alive' stories seem to be a reprint of the same story which were published days before the FBI released it's full photo list of the 9/11 hijackers.

    So I put it back on you, the same question I've been asking truthers for years, find me a video with one of these alive hijackers in it. You wont be able to.
     
  3. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was that so hard?
     
  4. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not particularly but for the 'alive hijackers' believers this information has been available for years and it continues to be ignored. That's is why I continue to ask them to prove their case by finding a single video interview with one of these alive hijackers.
     
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am very well versed in the English language ... it's called a "retraction" ... news organisations do it all the time... whoever wrote that for the BBC was obviously misinformed or ran with a story that he/she did not fully research ... it doesn't matter what Al Qaeda is known to do in this instance ... the BBC denies the initial story ... try again ...
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah the BBC is as reliable as a gypsy with a crystal ball. This is the same bunch who reported the collapse of WTC7 more than 20 minutes before it actually collapsed, then claimed they "lost" the tapes. The Keystone Kops of the MSM.
     
  7. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob it was Reuters who reported the collapse of Building 7 20 minutes early, BBC was going off their report. The tapes were lost because they were filed under 2002, not 2001. They were found. The entire BBC 'in on it' idea is the most retarded of all the retarded theories that retards have come up with.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, you're right, I mischaracterized the BBC, they're a squawking parrot for a gypsy with a crystal ball, very reliable.

    Yeah I read that they were "found" in a blog somewhere, I never saw it coming from the BBC itself. Either way, lost, found, not found, the reliability of the BBC goes as high up as any typical MSM outlet. That they were "lost" is of course, very credible, especially coming from the BBC, the same outlet that reported the collapse of WTC7 20+ minutes too early.

    Yeah that's it, let's get into name calling, that's always a great argument. Is that what you learned how to do during your extensive research? Who claims there was any "in on it" accusation? Richard Porter from the BBC? Is that who you're calling a retard?

    That the BBC is "in on it" depends on what you mean by "in on it". That the BBC took part in 9/11 is unfounded nonsense likely created by Richard Porter. That the BBC does what it can to defend the 9/11 cover-up is as obvious as it gets. No one needs to be a rocket scientist to see that. The same is true for just about all MSM outlets. The BBC did an hour long piece ("9/11: The Conspiracy Files") criticizing those who question/contradict the OCT. If the BBC was truly an honest independent news outlet, they would be asking a ton of questions about the OCT, not creating an obviously biased piece of propaganda level garbage. I've never read a single article from the BBC that seriously/legitimately questions the OCT. In fact, the BBC covered up its infamous WTC7 collapse piece for about 6 years until the heat was too hot, then came up with some silly arguments, including that they had "lost" the tapes ("oops"). The question I have for the BBC is what other 9/11 tapes were "lost"?
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Many have posited in previous years that the BBC are part of the NWO propaganda system, or some such empty-headed blather. What is surprising is that you seem oblivious to this.

    LOLOL
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBC is a propaganda rag, you're the one who's apparently oblivious to the obvious.

    Great argument, it's on a par with your "retard" name calling.
     
  11. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, that's just a subjective rant which is irrelevant to my point. How did you not know what the CTists think about the BBC announcement?

    It wasn't an argument, I just thought your rant was funny. Furthermore, I didn't call anyone a retard, and I think you are confused here. You're not BmanMcFly on other sites by any chance? He does that (*)(*)(*)(*) A LOT.
     
  12. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not a "rant", it is a fact based on BBC's articles and videos.

    Non sequitur.

    You mean you have no legitimate response to what I posted. That's ok, I'll take that as a dead end for you. Quit the insults with "rant", I don't rant. If you didn't understand, just say so.

    There's nothing confusing about your use of the word "retard". You used it, you own it.

    I'm Bob, no one else.
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ok Bob and no one else ... What do you make of the BBC announcing the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually happened? Honest mistake? In on it? Truthers love this angle so please posit a theory ...
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well they likely parroted Reuters but it was pretty bumbling to do that given WTC7 was standing behind Jane Standley while she was reporting it had collapsed. One of those fools should have done some basic homework rather than just go along with Reuters. It wasn't just the BBC, 4 different news sources announced the collapse of WTC7 before it actually collapsed, one just a few seconds before. It seems a lot of people were aware it was going to collapse/be taken down. According to a Fox News reporter, Silverstein was on the phone with the insurance company on 9/11 asking about the controlled demolition of WTC7. According to Tony Szamboti, he heard from an interview with Silverstein on a History Channel broadcast that he plainly said WTC was CD'd for safety reasons. So there are many stories going around. No one apparently knows what's true or not (except those involved) but one thing for sure, WTC7 did not collapse as a result of damage, fires or both.

    I'm not in love with anything except my wife and family and I'm still Bob. I don't have any theories for you, the facts are that the way WTC7 dropped in that manner in seconds is not a result of damage, fires or both, despite NIST's fraudulent report(s). There is no proof any such thing happened. So you guess what the possible alternative(s) is/are. There aren't too many.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what a cop out response ... "it seems a lot of people were aware it was going to collapse/be taken down" . ??? ... really Bob??? ... you don't even trust your own sources when we (the OTCers) challenge them ...

    you want to run with the BBC story but lump them in with the MSM conspiracy? ... pick a side Bob ...
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks. You don't like my response? Ask me if I care. You asked, I gave it. I made my point, that's all I wanted to do in the first place. I can't give you any answer you're going to like. I know how this goes, I've been around the block more than a few times. I don't care for many of your responses either. It's a discussion forum. That's all folks.

    PS - If you want to characterize this one as a "cop out" too, I'm fine with that.

    I did, long ago, Bob's side. I thought you might have noticed by now.
     
  18. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    stay out of the kitchen Bob ... that place is dangerous ...
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that has what to do with 9/11? I'm not 9/11, leave me out of the discussion.
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As the Judith Miller incident demonstrated, the media is completely under control of the MIC. Without the media, 911 could never have taken place the way it did. BBC is just a tiny bit of it.
     
  21. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yup ... the media did it ...

    and what is MIC? ... Men In China? ...
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eisenhower's term--the military industrial complex.
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which explains the Iraq invasion ... 9/11 wasn't needed for that ...
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They just needed a lot of ignorant and gullible Americans to support it under pretext of 9/11 and WMDs. And they certainly got that, those people can be found everywhere:

    [video=youtube;DtLRrnn7pZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtLRrnn7pZY[/video]

    [video=youtube;KJVZa9_Ha5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJVZa9_Ha5c[/video]
     
  25. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    pretty weak stuff Bob ... Australian Media does this all the time for the amusement of the plebs ...

    you are easily manipulated ...
     

Share This Page