posted September 13, 2007 12:09 AM            

quote:

---

Expert Goes On Record: Bin Laden 9/11 Confession Is Bogus
Professor says there is no doubt infamous Bin Laden tape is fake, being used to deflect 9/11 "conspiracy theories"

---

quote:

---

A leading expert on Osama Bin Laden has officially gone on the record saying that he believes the so called "9/11 Confession" tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake that has been used by US intelligence agencies to deflect attention from
“conspiracy theories” about 9/11.

Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, joined Kevin Barrett last Friday on his radio show (gcnlive.com, 2/16/2007, first hour) in his first public interview since comments he made last year indicating that he believes Bin Laden may be dead and that many of the newer tapes are either fake or consist of old audio and video.

The "Confession" video, played ad infinitum in the wake of the attack on Afghanistan in December 2001, was magically found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. It featured a fat Osama laughing and joking about how he'd carried out 9/11. The video was also mistranslated in order to manipulate viewer opinion and featured "Bin Laden" praising two of the hijackers, only he got their names wrong.

This Osama also uses the wrong hand to write with and wears gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith.

Despite the fact that the man in the video looks nothing like Bin Laden, the CIA stood by the video whilst many, including Professor Lawrence now, have declared it an outright fake.

Lawrence is the author of a book entitled Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, which translates Bin Laden's writing. In January 2006 he told ABC news that a newly released audio tape was missing several key elements and "was like a voice from the grave". The Professor had analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book, and, while the CIA confirmed the voice on the tape as Bin Laden, Lawrence questioned when it was recorded and declared the timing of its release as politically convenient.

Last Friday Lawrence, citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, told Kevin Barrett that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to bolster the official 9/11 conspiracy that 19 hijackers directed by Bin Laden from a cave carried out the attacks.

We have previously covered the scores of times Osama Bin Laden has been used as a tool of fear and control as a tried and tested method whenever the going gets tough. Many tapes have been determined to be total fakes by voice analysis or simply re-hashes of old material.

Research led us to discover that the most recent "Al Qaeda" video releases featuring Bin Laden had already featured in a docudrama The Road to Guantanamo. The media tentatively even admitted that it was the government that released the tapes.

In a separate revelation, AP reported that an expert on Islamic extremism deemed the Al Qaeda footage as so out of character for al-Qa'ida it could have been taken by a security agency.

Bin Laden was created by US intelligence , worked with US intelligence in the late 70s and 80s, was used as a patsy by US intelligence before and after 911 and is now being used as a manipulative tool of fear by the criminal elite faction currently in power in the US.

In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website.

“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," he was told Rex Tomb.

In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn't like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop - terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?

Then came the now thoroughly debunked "Confession Tape".

The fact that the FBI does not consider the 'confession tape' as reliable evidence of involvement in 9/11 was subsequently completely dismissed by the Washington Post and others who still say the tape proves that Al-Qaeda have, "proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings."

---

posted September 13, 2007 12:12 AM            

Incidentally, there's also this:

quote:

---

October 16, 2001-- An interview with Osama bin Laden was published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001. In this interview, bin Laden says of the September 11 attacks in the US:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

---

"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored. That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man."

posted September 13, 2007 01:39 AM              

Johnny, I find this article very educational and informative. Thank you
I only hope those with eyes will see it, and those with ears will hear it.

Then- Maybe, just maybe.. those with power will be forced to take positive action because of it!

posted September 13, 2007 02:34 AM            

quote:

---

The average person in America today is so brainwashed by the media though...
Many still believe this is a "just" war on terrorism.

---

Funny, too, how you have Bush saying in the 2000 election (and I quote) "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world, in, uh, nation-building missions, then we're going to have serious problems coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."

And then it comes out that the agenda was to go into Iraq from the very beginning, even before 9/11.

But who cares, we have 250 channels of American Gladiator. Yee-haw.

quote:

---

The media's not putting forth that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, but that recent poll indicated that 30% of Americans believe Saddam was personally involved with the attack. There are a lot of misinformed folks out there.

---

posted September 13, 2007 02:49 AM            

Sept. 12, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys

How can people believe something that isn’t true?

A significant number of Americans say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

That number rose above 50 percent in the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003. While that belief has since declined somewhat, for many Americans it still exists. In the latest CBS News/New York Times Poll 33 percent said they believe Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.

As has been repeated over and over, there was and is no evidence of any such link. So why do so many people believe something that just isn’t true?

One reason might be related to the amount of time a person spends following news, something related to education and gender. Forty-four percent of those with a high school education or less say Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, while just 20 percent of college graduates say so. Thirty-eight percent of women think he was part of the attack, compared with 27 percent of men.

Another reason could involve feelings about the Iraq war itself, and the importance of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Iraq War has become a partisan issue - three in four Republicans say going to war was the right thing to do, while three in four Democrats say it was not. Nearly half of those who now say the Iraq war was the right thing to do connect 9/11 with Saddam. Consequently, 40 percent of Republicans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, while just 27 percent of Democrats do.

Bringing down Saddam remains the key accomplishment of the war, according to the public, and those who support the war are more likely to believe this and to credit Saddam with a role in 9/11. Doing so, after all, gives them another justification for the war they support. Opponents of the war don’t have the same reason to blame Saddam.

Making a link between terrorism in general and the war in Iraq also matters. Overall, Americans are more likely to say the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists who might attack the U.S. than to say it is eliminating terrorists. But among those who believe the U.S. is eliminating terrorists by fighting in Iraq, just about half (49 percent) believe that one of those terrorists was Saddam himself!

Among Republicans, blaming Saddam is also related to the vote choice of those who say they plan to participate in a Republican primary or caucus next year. Those who support Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are more likely than those who support John McCain and Mitt Romney to link Saddam with 9/11.

But finally, the belief in what isn’t true brings us back to the quality of information - to where it comes from and how it is perceived. Norbert Schwarz, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, has conducted research (reported in this Washington Post article) that suggests that some people who are told something is false may actually remember it as being true. He measured the misperception within 30 minutes of the receipt of the information, and found that misperceptions may actually become stronger over time.

Apparently, linking one idea with another, even when it starts with a negative link, can reinforce the association between the two ideas. Howard Schuman, a University of Michigan professor emeritus and an expert in formulating polling questions, wrote in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s member listserve about a phenomenon he observed in a Detroit-area study some years back. The Metropolitan Detroit cross-section sample was asked to identify "Joe McCarthy," he wrote. Here were some of the verbatim answers:

"Yes, a Senator accused of being a communist."
"Yes, Red communist Senator."
"Indicted for communism, a Senator?"
"Yes, communism, a Senator accused of communism."
"Yes, Joe McCarthy was a communist."
"They thought he was a communist but it was never proven."
"Communist leaning."
"Yes, Senator, communist."
Senator Joe McCarthy, of course, made a name for himself accusing other people of being communists.

Schuman called this inversion. “Inversions,” he wrote, “indicate that people (no doubt including ourselves) often remember or learn an association between two elements, but are at best vague as to its original nature.”

Inversion is not the same as getting something “wrong.” Years ago, in a CBS News/New York Times poll, one respondent said he know where El Salvador was - “in Louisiana, near Baton Rouge.” And Schuman reported one respondent’s characterization of the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, a response that he said was “altogether convincing.” It was: “The line in football where you have three backs and you split a wide receiver to the right. A handoff to the running back.”

Certainly, for many people, linking Saddam with 9/11 may be a case of inversion. For others, it may be wishful thinking to justify their current position on the Iraq war. Either way, it has been part of the belief system of about one-third of the country for many years, and that perception shows no sign of disappearing.

________________________________________________________________________________________

posted September 13, 2007 12:41 PM            

It's obvious to simply everyone bin Laden and 19 Islamic hijacking terrorists had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

I'll bet bin Laden was sitting right next to Bush in the bowels of the CIA basement when Bush flew those remotely controlled aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon.

Yep, it's a conspiracy for sure.

posted September 13, 2007 08:19 PM            

Given that the official story of 9/11 is that bin Laden orchestrated the attacks, and that even our own FBI doesn't see credible evidence of this... how can we fight a "War on Terror" when we don't even know who the terrorists were?

Why was this video found under such bizarrely convenient circumstances? Why did Bush and Co. delay the 9/11 investigation for 14 months and then hinder it once it finally began? Why was the Patriot Act rushed through under an anthrax scare, the strain of which was then later traced back to federal bio-weapon labs in Iowa?

Don't you think these are questions Americans should be asking themselves? I'm honestly interested in your answer; you must either have all the answers already or be simply unwilling to ask the questions. If it's the former, I'd love to hear them; if it's the latter, why? If you care to prove that I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist with my facts all wrong, I'll shut-up.

I mean, I'll freely admit that some things I'm advancing are possibly debunkable; after looking more into Dr. Steven Jones (the thermite guy), I can see that his scientific credentials may be suspect, and I was just reading that there's been a major split in the 9/11 question movement around him. I didn't know that! But then, there are other, much better credentialed scientists and engineers who are putting forth some other, very serious questions. Take Dr. Judy Wood, for instance, who has degrees in civil engineering, materials engineering science, and engineering physics! Take Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth! And this is just dealing with the scientific side of the debate; there's a whole slew of other very difficult questions around the other aspects of the attacks.

posted September 13, 2007 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

CONSIDER THESE “COINCIDENCES”

· The anthrax attacks were concurrent with the debate of Bush’s Patriot Act by Congress and the media.

· The Senators who received anthrax letters were trying to amend the Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and the innocent.

· Two Senate democratic leaders received anthrax letters mailed the same day that Senator Feingold blocked an attempt to rush the bill through without discussion or amendments.

· And on that very same day, the FBI told the Iowa state lab to
destroy the original batch of the Ames strain, making tracing the
anthrax type more difficult.

· Senator Leahy received an anthrax threat after he expressed reservations about the Bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.

· Senate Majority Leader Daschle received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Bill.

· After receiving the anthrax letter, Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Bill, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the “appropriate balance.”

· No Republican received an anthrax letter.

· The House and Senate buildings were closed and not reopened until after the Patriot Act was passed.

· The Supreme Court was shut down with an anthrax scare the day after the constitutionally-challenged Patriot Act was signed by President Bush.

· All the contaminated letters contained the Ames strain of anthrax, the DNA of which is traced to the original batch preserved in a university lab in Ames, Iowa. This strain was “weaponized” in Utah into a potent powder with an elaborate secret technique developed at Fort Detrick, Md.[1]

· The FBI failed to interview Ft. Detrick anthrax experts for two months into their investigation, doing it only after the experts complained to the press of gross incompetence on the part of the FBI.

· The FBI overruled local homicide detectives who think that an anthrax expert was murdered, possibly because he knew too much.

---

And, when you put two and two together, realizing that the Patriot Act was said to be passed as a direct result of 9/11, even though it was written in advance, you have to ask once again, Cui bono? Who stood to gain from all of this?

posted September 14, 2007 01:12 PM            

However, the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency and I don't think the FBI is intent on convicting bin Laden in a court of law.

On the other hand, there are agents of the United States looking for bin Laden and when they find him, he can kiss his sorry ass goodbye.

posted September 14, 2007 09:38 PM            

quote:

---

However, the FBI is a domestic law enforcement agency and I don't think the FBI is intent on convicting bin Laden in a court of law.

---

Well, it seems you're wrong. He's on their Most Wanted list, as you can see here:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm

How odd that 9/11 isn't listed under his crimes, though!

quote:

---

I can hardly believe your account Johnny...and I don't.

---

Which account of mine do you not believe?

quote:

---

Not that we're going to invade a sovereign nation...like Pakistan...against their wishes to capture bin Laden.

---