Bin Laden Admissions to 9/11

For those that believe 9/11 was an "inside job", I have these for you.

These are all transcripts of Bin Laden laying claim to what happened on 9/11.

Three different news venues. Three different interviews over a 5 year period.

CNN.com
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

News24.com
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1938283,00.html

Aljazeera.com
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

How do you explain that a man would take responsibility for such an attack that he didn't commit knowing that if he didn't commit the attack he stood the chance of being found to being a fraud to the world and all his followers?

 

Finally!

THE TRUTH!

 

Please see:
http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2001/Will the real Osama bin Laden please stand up.htm
enjoy
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
9/11 was an inside job!
.

 

n0spam4me,

Thanks for the link...

As for what I took from the article. At the top of the page I see the word 'Opinions'. That tells me that these are the thoughts of one individual. He may believe his opinon to be the truth, but that doesn't make it so.

As I read the article I found the following porton of the article very interesting.

I'd like to address the last sentence first. "It's time to demand that those files be opened and the truth revealed." The whole basis of this article is based on the fact that the author, Scott Marshall, believes that there is some sinister connection beween Bin Laden and the US government. The truth is, he states in that one sentence his suspicions. They are not proven facts. He is still looking for the proof of his suspicions by having "those files be opened and the truth revealed" .

I'd also like to point out the use of the word "story" repeatedly in this article. Two of the definitions for the word story is 1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale. 2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel. I have to wonder if the word story used numerous times in this article are a freudian slip of sorts. I certainly wouldn't refer to a article that I am citing as proof of facts as a story.

As for "details some of bin Laden's direct involvement with the CIA", I'd like to direct you to a website for Peter Bergen, a CNN terrorism analyst. Peter Bergen has traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Indonesia to learn about Osama bin Laden and his followers.

http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=271

In case you decide not to go to the link, let me summarize what Mr Bergen has to say about the Bin Laden/CIA connection.

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA—that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."


Just based on what I have already given you in this response, I don't really feel I need to address this article any further. Nothing in the article is provable where Bin Ladens supected connections with the CIA are concerned.


What do you think of the three articles I gave you links to above?

 

I can not see Bin admitting anything.

I Believe that 9-11 was a inside job. Just like the facts that was posted about the CIA involvement. I would not excuse the CIA, or the FBI, from being involved with Bin Laden. Before 1990 Osama Bin Laden and Saddam was the best of friends with the Bush family. Now the million dollar question should be.....what happend to end the friendship? Both, the CIA and the FBI is suppose to be government agenies. Which means their orders come
from the Secretary of State,Office of Defense,the Justice Department, and of course the White House.

If anything 9-11 happened to get revenge, but by who and why? and I do believe that there is people in the government who knows. My final question is now that Bush got Saddam remove ...why he can't catch Bin Laden?

 

If you can't see Bin Laden admitting anything in the news articles I gave to you, then it is because you don't want to see it. Much in the same way you want to believe that the US was behind 9/11 without documented proof.

 

You're exactly right.

 

My Facts is based on past Government Crisis.

What have Bush admitted? So as far as I am concern they are both in the
same boat. Its not the fact that I do not want to see it, but its facts from
Desert Storm, and to the present I believe the CIA or Secret Service had
a hand in the plan. Document proof? get real...the facts is all in your face
accepted it, and can you admit that things are way out of hand since the
Bush administration is the leadership?

Frankly, I am concerned that the real facts about 9-11 will be known, and
WHOEVER commited 9-11 needs to pay for the crime.

 

You have basically proven my point. You are not willing to address the articles and you continue to attempt to deflect the blame to our own government without any documented proof. You see what you want to see.

As for things being way out of hand with Bush's Administration, again, you see what you want to see. Even though your claim has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread, you tell me what is out of hand. Plase stick to facts and please back it up with data.

 

one of the articles cite a video tape that is widely Disputedas to its authenticity and to whether or not the man seen in the tape eve is Bin laden at all.likewise whether or not it was our funding that helped binladen fight the rusians or not the money he had was made through his families Construction Business


which has some fairly reputable connections to the Bush family. as well as the quayle family..the Bush family and the Binladen family have continued theyre relations as least as far as 2003 from what we can see

The Bush family has a long and storied history of dealing with enemies of the state for profits as The Great grandfather Prescott bush demonstarted with the Nazis and theyre rise to subsequent power The Bush family helped finance the nazi party


and interestingly enough Hitler used his own staged 9-11 type event the reichstag fire to propel him and his agenda along with his business partners into Power and un imaginable wealth for the time period


9-11 was most certainly an inside job, being masterminded by the likes of Rove Chaney wolfowitz and others who devised this "pearl harbor like" event the think tank called the P.N.A.C the project for a new american century they wrote a white paper in 2000 titled Re-Building Americas defenses"
In this paper the plans for what we are watching were all layed out ....even referring to a new pearl harbor to galvanize the country to action and to accept the manifesto without question


I appreciate the links you have provided and the text from the videos .but in MY opinion they do not Prove to anyone that Binladen was responsible.My research has led me to believe that it was a culimination of people some of whom are high in the bush administration


it was designed to induce Blind patriotim and allow them to proliferate theyre agenda Unimpeded by the people of the country.as they would instantly rally and stand tall just as they did in hawaii all those years ago..
This was deliberate and calculated

perhaps one of the largest most succesfuly Psy ops in this countries history. I am sorry that I cannot come to accept what you have provided as truth please let us agree that we disagre and move on please do not feel the need to attack my position as it clearly differs from yours


we are allowed to each have an opinion on matters and many times we find that we are not in agreement with all or vice versa

 

Here we go again. The CIA gave aid to bin Ladin when he was fighting the Russians in the 80s because the Soviet threat was considered the biggest we could face at that time. Nobody knew about what would happen 20 years later. Hindsight being 20/20, it was a mistake, but don't ask that the CIA be able to se what would happen 10 years down the line with our allies of today. The fact that we funded bin Ladin in the early 80s does not in any way connect the U.S. government to 9/11. In fact, everyone in the intelligence community knows that bin Ladin started his crusade against America when we withdrew all support from him after he stopped fighting the Soviets. Teaching him how to use stinger missiles is not the same as providing terrorist training that was used against us. I have, however, seen several people outside of this administration claiming the Iraq provided bin Ladin with a model 707 to train on.

Bush's family business connections to the bin Ladin family business makes no matter because the bin Ladin family has disowned Osama and have not given him one red cent for decades now. Its as simple as that

 

Not that simple from where i sit.as i say the Bush Family seems to have a Bit of a HISTORY when it comes to funding and aiding extremists the last group they propelled to power was the Nazi party and Adolph Hitler..
who cares what BL 's family says. they disowned him yeah im betting thats not the reality thats the candy coated surface


Your right on one count though. We DID USE BinLaden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, because the American public, would not have approved a war. and we needed to STOP the soviets....so in true American fashion, we created our boogieman.........BL......and then we provided arms, and cia trainers, and continued the flow of arms, and cash, to the boogieman. All to defeat the Russians. When it was apparent that the Russians would fall


We pulled our support from the boogieman, and Publicly declared him a boogieman! and then we needed to chase, and eliminate, the boogie man. And so the plan went. And the whole while? people in control circles, like the carlysle group ,The PNAC Halliburton, KBR and others, made WILD PROFITS, and still do to this very day

 

I don't care what Prescott Bush did in the 30's. It has nothing to do with what is going on today. Do you follow the same political views as your father? or grandfather for that matter? If not, then you are walking evidence that your point is meaningless.

Do you have anything to back up your claims that bin Ladin's family still supported him once he went rogue? No? Didn't think so. Forgive me for being so blunt, but your hunches don't amount to one iota of proof when you try to build a case against the President. Come up with proof that the Bush family's money went to Osama bin Ladin, and you might have something, but until then, youre just spitting into the wind.

Oh, and you will be hard pressed to find one historian that is willing to say that Afghanistan didn't at least assist in the downfall of the Soviet Union. It was the right decision for what was known at the time.

 

It does have something to do with today though .It Demonstrates the Mindset of the Bush Family.It tells us how, and where the BUSH Fortune was made.it shows us that this Family is NOT afraid, to enter into anti- american interests, in order to line the coffers. It is of total relevance. Particularly with the Tight relationship of the BinLaden Group, and the Bush family, as well as The carlysle Group.



KBR is a remnant of the company that Prescott used to finance the nazi war machine . With this type of family history, and behavior, it becomes easy to see where a tie between Bush and Bin Laden, may come into play


Im not from one of the long standing, wealthy, powerful American families, or i can assure you.... I WOULD be of the same political leanings as both my grandfather, and father, and to a large extent i do agree with almost all of my fathers political beliefs .It is not such a stretch, to see where that is COMMONPLACE in the United states as well as abroad..


Ill have to take a look to see where it is that the Bin Ladens were still dealing with Usama. When i find it, ill post it for you.Feel Free to be as blunt as youd like, this is america........... freedom of speech, and all. Im a big boy, i can handle whatever you got.Where was it that i said i was either Building a case against Bush.......or had a case against Bush??? Or was there somewhere i told you all hey look at this it PROVES>....................................anything? I didnt?



What is with this board, and you all projecting things upon people?What nobody here is allowed an opinion, it seems unless you all approve of it? Otherwise it always resorts to the same thing from what i am seeing? arent we here discussing this? thats sure what i thought we were doing?


I never claimed to have any proof of anything, nor did i say i was attempting to build a case against Bush ....bush is just a puppet ,he has no real power, hes a patsy a figurehead...thats not where the power lies? Nor have i claimed such? I never even said if i liked Bush or not? Your making a whole lot of assumptions, and then responding to your own assumptions.!! as you certainly arent responding to anything i said ???I never said i had proof, that Bush family money went to Bin laden? Actually if i was to comment on it, id believe the money flow would have been a 2 way street, with the majority of the money going into Bush Coffers, or carlysle coffers etc.





I NEVER again, said that afghanistan wasnt the main contributing factor to the downfall of Russia...Actually I agreed with that, and still do? All i said, is that we USED BL to fight the Russians in afghanistan.? And your right it worked, and they were defeated, and the soviet union fell !!! ALL GOOD THINGS? So im at a loss to your stabs at me there? As i never disputed the success ,of using the taliban to kick the Russians butts?

 

I apologize if that was not the intent of your post, but you made it sound like these organizations were using bin Ladin as a means of making a profit. I was only saying that using bin Ladin was the right decision at the time with the given information and that I fail to see how a profit was made because of him.

Your assertions about the Bush family are baseless. The fact that Prescot Bush had dealings with Nazis proves nothing more than Prescott Bush supported out enemies. He is an individual, as is George W. Bush. You seem to think that the wealthy are somehow of a different mental state than normal Americans, and I just don't follow. The kind of logic you are using to connect them is no better than racial profiling, and goes against the core values of this country.

I apologize if I'm making the wrong assumptions. I'm an intelligence analyst by trade, so thats just what I do. You make the claim that you believe that George Bush is dealing with our enemies, and I would consider that a strong indicator as to a dislike of him.

The reason I am being so forward here is that it angers me to hear baseless arguments. You are saying that you believe this President is guilty of something and can't provide evidence of why you believe this. To me, that is what is wrong with this country today. A person is still innocent until proven guilty, and it is just frustrating to hear these kind of claims unless the can be backed up.