Hi Doug >No conspiracy was needed. > >Bin Laden knew what the U.S. wanted: an excuse for U.S. armies in the >Middle East. > >The U.S. knew what Bin Laden wanted first: a major strike at the U.S., >by preference at the World Trade centre (they had tried before, and it >was highly symbolic).
AFAIK, Bin Laden never admitted responsibility for 9/11. Various statements purportedly by Bin Laden claiming he did it tend not to survive close scrutiny. He denied it several times: <http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html> <http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/> <http://www.911omissionreport.com/bin_laden_denies.html> He said it was carried out by individuals with their own motivation or for their own personal reasons. Or that was his opinion, but if he didn't do it himself why would he know anything more than anyone else about who did? And if he did do it, why would he deny it? At its "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page the FBI says "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." But it doesn't mention 9/11. <http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm> Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, commented: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." <http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/15910/June_6_2006_FBI_says_No_hard_evidence_connecting_Bin_Laden_to_9_11> "On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer." (Twice.) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/11/afghanistan.iraq> And "Al-Qaida" is just a fantasy, there was no such worldwide network of sleeper cells and so on just waiting to strike and it was only a matter of time, it simply didn't exist, they made it up. The neo-cons are real aces at starting with the desired conclusion and filling in the "facts" as you go along, they've been doing that since the Reagan era. Phantom enemies - but they tend to become real if you demonise them enough and chuck a few billion bucks at it. >They differed on what the result of U.S. armies in the Middle East would >be. Points to Bin Laden. Indeed. As a French diplomat commented at the time: "Monsieur Bin Laden must be tres satisfied." Anyway, no perps you could shake a charge-sheet at, and the whole thing remains about as clear as ketchup. Some big jets flew into some big buildings in the US and lots of people were killed, and beyond that? "I know FOR A FACT that the World Trade Center was hit by laser beams from a secret US military space station..." Right. Best Keith >Doug Woodard >St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada > >Keith Addison wrote: >>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1> >> >> Aarghh!! Youtube! Who's got 5 min 16 sec to spare? >> >> This is quicker... >> >> The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically >> States 9/11 was Staged Event". >> >> But is he the Head of US Military Intelligence? No. >> >> It takes only the first 5 sec of Youtube for him to state that his >> name is Major General Albert Stubblebine, and another 10 sec to find >> this at wikipedia: >> >> "Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding >> general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command >> from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his >> interest in parapsychology and was a supporter of the Stargate >> Project." >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine> >> >> Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army > > intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**. Not quite the same >> thing eh. >> >> (Walked through any walls lately Bert?) >> >> That saved 5 min 1 sec, and gave a much better result. >> >> Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate? >> >> Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive again: "Enough of the 9/11 >> Conspiracy Theories, Already" <http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/> >> >> If it doesn't start off with the preferred conclusion-of-choice and >> then go in search of the "facts" to "prove" it, but instead simply >> goes in search of facts, along with all the patient and careful >> cross-checking that takes, and then emerges with a fact-based >> conclusion that checks out, or even with just some hard facts without >> a conclusion... well then, that's different. But AFAIK it hasn't >> happened yet, and don't hold yer breath. >> >> Best >> > > Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
