That sound you hear is of 9/11 truthers’ heads exploding all over the land. Of course, other Islamic jihadists have admitted this before, and that hasn’t stopped the truthers, so this probably won’t, either. It has been made abundantly clear over the last twelve-plus years of jihad since 9/11 that some people are impervious to facts and evidence, no matter what.
“Al-Qaida spokesman says he warned bin Laden on night of 9-11 that America would kill him,” by Larry Neumeister and Tom Hays for The Associated Press, March 19:
NEW YORK, N.Y. – Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law offered a rare glimpse of the al-Qaida leader in the hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, recounting during surprise testimony Wednesday in a Manhattan courtroom how the two met that night in a cave in Afghanistan.
The testimony came as Sulaiman Abu Ghaith’s trial on charges he conspired to kill Americans and aid al-Qaida as a spokesman for the terrorist group took a dramatic turn. His decision to take the witness stand was announced by his lawyer, Stanley Cohen, who surprised a nearly empty courtroom that quickly filled with spectators as word spread.
“Did you learn about what happened … the attacks on the United States?” the son-in-law recalled bin Laden asking him.
“We are the ones who did it.”
Abu Ghaith testified that bin Laden seemed worried that night and asked what he thought would happen next. Abu Ghaith said he predicted America “will not settle until it accomplishes two things: to kill you and topple the state of the Taliban.”
Bin Laden responded: “‘You’re being too pessimistic,'” Abu Ghaith recalled.
Bin Laden then offered the onetime imam a job that would gain him infamy as well as a place in the inner circle of the world’s most wanted terrorist. “I want to deliver a message to the world,” Abu Ghaith said bin Laden told him. “… I want you to deliver that message.”
The testimony was a rare gambit by the defence, a last-ditch effort to counter a mountain of evidence against Abu Ghaith, including an alleged confession and videos showing him sitting beside Bin Laden on Sept. 12, 2001, and another in which he warned Americans that “the storm of airplanes will not abate.” The defence has never disputed that Abu Ghaith associated with bin Laden after 9-11, but it contends he was recruited as a religious teacher and orator, and had no role in plotting more attacks.
On cross examination, though, Abu Ghaith admitted that he sent his pregnant wife, six daughters and a son to Kuwait while he went to Afghanistan on Sept. 7, 2001, after hearing inside and outside al-Qaida training camps that something big was going to happen soon.
“I had heard something would happen but I didn’t know what,” he said in response to Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ferrara’s questions.
Lacing some questions with sarcasm, Ferrara took particular aim at Abu Ghaith’s claims that he was merely embellishing bin Laden’s “bullet points” on videotapes as he condemned America. And Abu Ghaith’s testimony also gave the prosecutor an opportunity to again show video clips of Abu Ghaith angrily denouncing America and of the second plane hitting a World Trade Center tower on Sept. 11.
Ferrera mocked Abu Ghaith’s statement that he stayed and helped bin Laden for two weeks after Sept. 11 because the conditions in Afghanistan were tense and he had no way to travel.
“You are telling this jury that you made a speech in which you called on people to terrorize the infidels because you didn’t have a personal car?” he said, drawing from one juror a smile and a nod to a fellow juror.
“I don’t understand the question,” Abu Ghaith responded.
Testifying through an Arabic interpreter, the 48-year-old Kuwaiti-born defendant looked relaxed when he first took the stand, wearing a blue shirt, open at the collar, beneath a charcoal-colored jacket.
He testified he first met bin Laden when the al-Qaida leader, who was living in Kandahar, Afghanistan, summoned him in June 2001 after hearing he was a preacher from Kuwait. He took bin Laden’s daughter as an additional wife years after 9-11.
Abu Ghaith said bin Laden explained that the al-Qaida training camps involved so much weapons training and a rough, hard life that he wanted him to give the recruits merciful hearts. He also testified he knew bin Laden was suspected in terrorist attacks but still “wanted to get to know that person.”
The defendant also said that videos he made warning of more attacks on Americans were based on “quotes and points by Sheik Osama.” He testified that his videotaped sermons were religious in nature, and meant to encourage Muslims to fight oppression.
If “oppression befalls … any category of people, that category must revolt at some point,” he said. “I wanted to proclaim the message that Muslims must bear some responsibility to defend themselves.”…
James says
I made a thread about this subject on this forum http://f2bb.com/bbs/show_topic/963749
Its full of 9/11 truthers and anti-zionist conspiracy nutjobs.
fatimasadrcity says
truthers and the anti Israel crowd are usually a few fries short of a happy meal….quite frightening how many of them exist and believe the nonsense they spew
leonore says
Conspiracy theorists are the walking wounded of the mental health community. If they are not insane, they are malevolent people who enjoy
heaping sheet on the memory of the people who died, in many cases
heroically, and their surviviing families. The great flaw of conspiracy theories and this one in particular, is that so many people would have
had to know about it.
duh_swami says
Not all conspiracy theories are theories, some of them are actualities. The trick is to figure out which is which.
Michael says
US State Department released a partial list of 76 Jewish victims of 9/11 attacks. But it does not stop antisemites from repeating the lie no Jews died or showed up to work on 9/11.
The 4,000 Jews Rumor – US Department of State
http://web.archive.org/web/200te50408072925/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
U.S. State Department has published a list of 76 Jews that died on 9/11
http://www.freedomportal.net/forum/index.php/topic,25885.0.html
Mike says
US State Dept released a partial list of 76 jewish victims of 9/11 attacks in response to antisemites claiming no Jews died or showed up to work.
The 4,000 Jews Rumor – US Department of State
http://web.archive.org/web/200te50408072925/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
U.S. State Department has published a list of 76 Jews that died on 9/11
http://www.freedomportal.net/forum/index.php/topic,25885.0.html
Apparently there is a tiny minority of antisemites who believe Arabs did 9/11 and do a good job of debunking it. Here is one of them. Karl Radl who owns semetic controversy and posts on Stormfront.
Jews and 9/11: A Response to John Martinson Jr.
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/02/jews-and-911-response-to-john-martinson.html
A Jewish 9/11 Debacle: The Odigo, Missing Jews and Related Claims
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/09/jewish-911-debacle-odigo-missing-jews.html
marclouis says
It’s not really anything new, most muslims and other islamist enablers know it already, they just enjoy spouting the “it was an inside job” and “the jooooz did it” line because of the confusion it causes.
There are many of them referring to the 2000 engineers that back their conspiracy theory disregarding the many hundreds of thousands of similarly qualified engineers who do not doubt the official line (NIST) that 19 muslims did it to further global jihad that was stalled at the Gates of Vienna, September 11 1683.
Here is an excellent article for anyone that wants the truth of 911 http://911-engineers.blogspot.ca/
fair_dinkum says
“You are telling this jury that you made a speech in which you called on people to terrorize the infidels because you didn’t have a personal car?”
and were trying to absorb what you said to warrant this question.
it was hard to get out, so you decided to stay. and do some hate speech tapes.
not good enough. lets hope its a life sentence for this repugnant individual.
Angemon says
“it was hard to get out, so you decided to stay. and do some hate speech tapes.”
Well, he was being fed and given a place to bunk. It would be rude of him not to give anything in return. I don’t know, maybe he was a clumsy fellow and they were afraid of giving him a weapon:
mortimer says
‘If oppression befalls’…
Translation: ‘If Muslims are not politically supreme over the disbelievers, fight, kill and enslave the disbelievers.’
Warfare against the disbelievers until the victory of Islamic supremacism is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
Foamy says
Absolutely correct. After all, it is in the Koran.
The West needs to know the Koran. Otherwise, how can we fight an enemy we don’t know? That’s what we’ve been doing thus far.
Liam1304 says
@NIST ignored the eye witness accounts of explosions, both seen & heard; and of firemen who saw rivers of molten metal in the basements of the Towers “like a foundry”.
@According to NIST WTC 7, which wasn’t struck by a plane, collapsed almost in its own footprint literally at free-fall speed (meaning zero resistance) for the first half of its descent simply because it had sufferred some small isolated fires.
@A caretaker in one of the twin towers was in the 3rd basement level and testifies to being knocked off his feet by an explosion coming from *beneath* him. He also mentions a terribly burned man entering this level even though he could not have received his burns from the plane impact.
@The windows of the foyer of one or both Towers (sorry I forget) had their 2″ thick glass blown out though the planes hit many stories above.
@People exited the lifts at the Ground flor sufferring severe burns even though the lift shafts are staggerred so as not to act like chimneys in the event of a fire and so those people could not have been at the level of the plane strikes to receive their burns – unless one accepts they moved en masse from one lift to the second as they were burning in order to get to the Ground floor several minutes of lift time below.
@Experienced pilots maintain that they could not have manuevered the planes as the virtually untrained hijackers did.
@No meaningful video evidence has been offerred of the plane impact on the Pentagon even though it is among the most surveilled buildings on the planet – a simple clear bit of film would shut everyone up who questions whether a plane or something else hit the Pentagon.
@The area of the Pentagon hit by the plane was occupied by the group looking into the loss of around T$2mentioned on TV by Mr Rumsfeld only the day before. Eye witness accounts of the Pentagon attack mention the only things burning after the impact of the Plane were the computers – which started burning from the *inside*.
I could go on. And please notice I haven’t blamed the Jooz, the Freemasons or the Jesuits and I haven’t denied the reality of Jihad. Neither have I slandered those who disagree with me 🙂
There remain too many questions friends. That’s all.
Daniel Anglin says
I totally agree! A 100% excellent post
gravenimage says
Liam1304 wrote, among reams of other verbiage:
@According to NIST WTC 7, which wasn’t struck by a plane, collapsed almost in its own footprint literally at free-fall speed (meaning zero resistance) for the first half of its descent simply because it had sufferred some small isolated fires.
………………………………..
What rot. By the time WTC7 collapsed, it had huge amounts of debris from the fallen towers on its roof, which appears to have been the main cause of collapse.
All of these buildings were well-built, but *none of them* were constructed to take direct hits from fully-loaded jet airplanes, as the two main towers did.
If you are really just confused, this is an important study from Popular Mechanics:
“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/911-myths
This is the section specifically about WTC7:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278927
Liam1304 says
Hiya Craven, how ya goin’? Good to hear from you.
You say:~
+++By the time WTC7 collapsed, it had huge amounts of debris from the fallen towers on its roof, which appears to have been the main cause of collapse.+++
I’m unaware that there was a lot of rubble on the roof – have you a source for this information? I can’t see such rubble in the videos and it doesn’t sound like a large amount of rubble on the roof would account for the entire building dropping symetrically at free-fall speed – starting with the central rooftop Penthouse, which (in other circumstances of course)could indicate a deliberate demolition as this is how large buildings are typically demolished, taking out the centre pillars first. I could imagine roof rubble causing the roof to collapse, but all the pillars of the whole building far below the roofline, simultaneously? A bit far-fetched on the face of it. But I could be missing something.
BTW it was those conspiracy types at Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth who forced NIST to admit that they had fudged their figures and issue a retraction admitting that building 7 really did drop at freefall for the first half of its descent. They seemed to have done a service to truth on that occasion at least.
Just so we’re clear: freefall means that the top floor could have been duplicated, put off to the side of building 7 on a really big crane and released. The top floor still attached to the building would get 1/2 way to the ground at the exact same time as this duplicate floor. Zero resistance. All due to some isolated nearly-burned-out fires (& a large amount of invisible to the eye, presumably unevely distributed, rubble on the roof). Some of us just think this seems a little odd…
You say:~
+++All of these buildings were well-built, but *none of them* were constructed to take direct hits from fully-loaded jet airplanes, as the two main towers did.+++
My dear friend, you are quite wrong on this. As part of their design the twin towers were built specifically to withstand direct impacts from the largest airliners of their day, the 707. Building 7 was not. However, as you note, it wasn’t hit by a plane.
You say:~
+++If you are really just confused, this is an important study from Popular Mechanics: “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report”…+++
Those are pretty old attempts at debunking which have themselves been debunked by AE911Truth. Might I commend their website to you? http://www.ae911truth.org/ have a look, see what you make of it. There’s Pilots for 911 Truth too http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Interesting stuff…
BTW I have NO IDEA who was behind it IF it was an inside job. Not a clue. I just want to know why there seem to be so many anomalies…
Well, thanks for the chat. See you round and take care of yourself, I’ve read your stuff and am glad we’re on the same team.
duh_swami says
Truthers have a lot of evidence except the most important, if this was an ‘inside’ job as claimed, who dun it, if not jihadists? The answer to that is always vague. The CIA, Black ops, ‘the Gov’ etc, but no names, no charges, no arrests.
There must be a ‘Mr Big’ somewhere. Someone came up with the idea, and ordered another to implement, which would involve several if not many people. Yet no one knows anything, no evidence, no proof, no whistleblower confession.
Then there are the US gov documents, released under FOIA, to Judicial Watch, that show the Clinton administration knew of Bin Ladens/Al-Qaeda plan to fly planes into buildings, but took no action because they thought Al-Qaeda was not capable of it.
Smart guy says
It is easy to blame Moslems for doing any act of terror whether they did it or not. Nobody is going to try and blame say the Quakers of doing 911.
It is clear that our government was supporting the destruction of the twin towers. It also goes with out saying that Islam is an evil religion. The problem with eliminating evil is that you end up in the short run behaving exactly the same as the bad guys. People speak badly of Oliver Cromwell who fought a Civil War in England for religious freedom after the Catholics masscred over 40,000 Protestants in Ireland in 1643. But the winning of that war gave us Americans religious freedom. The American Revolution was a continuation of that same Civil War. The Royalists changed their name to the Tories and the American Revolution was between the Royalists now known as the Tories and the Puritans now known as the Patriots.
A French Protestant wrote “The Social Contract” and it was Protestants who have given us modern Democracy. Methodists still practice the “Social Gospel”
Toryism means one law for the rich and another for the poor,hence the statement in the declaration on Independence “We hold these truths self evident that all men were created equal.” But there are other forms of Toryism, such as, one law for the believer and another for the non believer or infidel. Islam is religious Toryism and inorder to maintain our revolution against Toryism no Moslem can be allowed to be a citizen of America.
Tribalism is another form of Toryism, one law for the tribal members and another for those outside the tribe. “If you love your own what extrodinary
thing are you doing.” Jesus.
Also “Do not give what is Holy to dogs or swine.” American citizenship is
Holy and cannot be given to any form of Toryism. Politicans who have given citizenship to Tories are traitors to the American Revolution.
The second Amendment comes from the pen of Oliver Cromwell who wrote a Constitution for England and in it he said “The right of Protestants to keep and bare arms shall nor be infringed.”
Even cronism is a form of Toryism.
Henry says
Just who or when has anyone ever blamed Muslims for terrorist attacks without evidence? Please point to it.
How is it ‘clear’ that our government supported the destruction of the twin towers? Facts and evidence please.
“behaving exactly the same as the bad guys” Really? How’s that? From what I can see Islamists never have any compunction about committing war crimes against civilians,they regularly target children, they consistently flout international law, and they take full advantage of morality, or rules that their opponents follow.
gravenimage says
The creeps are coming out in force on this thread.
Not-so-“Smart guy” wrote:
It is easy to blame Moslems for doing any act of terror whether they did it or not. Nobody is going to try and blame say the Quakers of doing 911.
……………………………………
Notice the “logic” here—it is easy to blame Muslims for violence…because they are so violent. Ergo, this casts doubt on their violence…
But this is the least of it—there are huge amounts of evidence that 9/11 was Jihad terror. Moreover, Muslims have claimed responsibility for it, and “ordinary” Muslims danced in the street and handed out candy when they heard of the atrocity. Seems that a lot of Muslims must have been ‘Islamophobic’, as well…sarc/off
More:
It is clear that our government was supporting the destruction of the twin towers.
……………………………………
Why would you claim it is “clear” that the US government would want to attack its own landmarks and murder its own people? This is the worst sort of calumny. Evidence, please.
More:
It also goes with out saying that Islam is an evil religion. The problem with eliminating evil is that you end up in the short run behaving exactly the same as the bad guys.
……………………………………
When have we *ever* behaved “exactly the same as the bad guys”? Despite your specious claims, the US government goes out of its way to avoid harming civilians.
There is a great deal to criticize in the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—in fact, of the “war on terror” in general—but the idea that the US government targets innocent people has *never* been one of them.
I won’t bother to address your rather muddled understanding of history, except to correct this passage:
The second Amendment comes from the pen of Oliver Cromwell who wrote a Constitution for England and in it he said “The right of Protestants to keep and bare (sic) arms shall nor (sic) be infringed.”
………………………………………….
Here’s the actual text:
“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”
How any of this bolsters his implication that the United States has murdered her own people and blamed it on the poor, poor Muslims is not entirely clear…
duh_swami says
It is clear that our government was supporting the destruction of the twin towers.
Clear how? You have proof of this? Who in government? Names please.
The Islamist says
Inside job.com. This was done in order to start many wars agains muslims which will weaken them so that IsraHELL can easily attack them. Welcome to the NWO.
Henry says
Who but Dar al Islam is at war with Dar al Harb ? Isn’t it a ‘good’ Muslim’s duty to wage Jihad?
gravenimage says
The Islamist wrote:
Inside job.com. This was done in order to start many wars agains muslims which will weaken them so that IsraHELL can easily attack them. Welcome to the NWO.
………………………………..
Good God, what projection. Israel has *never* attacked Muslims except to defend herself. She just wants Muslims to leave her alone.
Muslims, however, have made quite clear their intention to destroy Israel.
Moreover, Muslims all over the world are attacking Infidels and the “insufficiently Islamic”. Does the Jihad in Nigeria have anything to do with Israel? How about the Jihad in Thailand? The Jihad in Mali? The Jihad in Syria? The Jihad in Russia? The Jihad in the Philippines? The Jihad in Kenya? The Jihad in China? The Jihad in Sudan?
What crap.
inMAGICn says
Cue vamp from the Twilight Zone.
sidney penny says
The best comment is this:
“The great flaw of conspiracy theories and this one in particular, is that so many people would have had to know about it.”
It is so so hard to keep secrets now days.
People are people and cannot keep their mouth shut.
Conscience gets the better of you sooner rather than latter.
and one person could not have organised this and gone to his grave.
Someone would have come out by now with exact, precise details,(e.g. in a murder where is body is hidden) for money or fame or both.
gravenimage says
Osama: “The attacks on the U.S.? We are the ones who did it.”
That sound you hear is of 9/11 truthers’ heads exploding all over the land.
……………………………….
If only. Truthers are so wedded to the idea that it was Mossad or the CIA or bad ‘ol George Bush that it doesn’t matter how many Jihadists proudly claim responsibility (or, needless to say, how much evidence there is).
And Muslims like to have it both ways—dance in the streets and hand out candy over the great victory over the “Great Satan”; and still claim it was the nefarious Joooooooooos whenever 9/11 makes Islam “look bad”.
More:
“You are telling this jury that you made a speech in which you called on people to terrorize the infidels because you didn’t have a personal car?” he said, drawing from one juror a smile and a nod to a fellow juror.
……………………………….
*Excellent*. It’s always good to see savvy Infidels see through Muslims’ bullsh*t.
More:
If “oppression befalls … any category of people, that category must revolt at some point,” he said. “I wanted to proclaim the message that Muslims must bear some responsibility to defend themselves.”…
……………………………….
Jihadists can always phrase the most vicious attacks on innocent civilians as “defense”.
Remember that what bin Laden considered “oppression” was the United States agreeing to protect Saudi Arabia against attack by Saddam Hussein—at Saudi *request*—and hence temporarily stationing a few troops in the “Land of the Two Holy Places”.
Americans bent over backwards to show “respect”—even discriminating against their own female personnel in the process. But of course it wasn’t enough—with Muslims, it never is.
dumbledoresarmy says
From the article –
“He testified that his videotaped sermons were religious in nature, and meant to encourage Muslims to fight oppression.
“If “oppression befalls … any category of people, that category must revolt at some point,” he said. “I wanted to proclaim the message that Muslims must bear some responsibility to defend themselves.”…”.
ah yes, it’s all about resisting “oppression”.
But what is the special Islamspeak definition of “oppression”?? What do Muslims really mean when they say that Islam, or Muslims/ the Ummah, is “oppressed”??
An ex-Muslim, Abul Kasem, explains it all for us in this classic article from 2005, “When Is Islam Oppressed?”
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamOppressed.htm
When is Islam Oppressed?
by Abul Kasem
Excerpt (to show what I mean; bear in mind that Abul Kasem no longer believes all this vile garbage; he is merely setting it all out as clearly as he can, so that the rest of us can get an insight into the twisted mind of the mohammedan mob from which he sensibly defected):
“…Here is how Islam is oppressed by the unbelievers:
“The infidels do not submit to Allah despite repeated warnings to them.
“This is the highest form [of] rebellion by the Kafirs and an extreme type of oppression to Islam.
“The infidel women go to swim in the beaches wearing bikini. Allah is greatly offended by such outrageous conduct of infidel women.
“The Kafir nations condemn Islamic stoning in Islamic Paradises. Islamic penal code is written by Allah, how could the infidels condemn such a divine, merciful penal system? Allah is surely angry with the infidels….”.