What really happened on 9/11?

[Phoenyx]

By the way, why does the video use a photoshopped image of Bin Laden on someone else's body receiving dialysis? Shouldn't that throw up red flags as to the veracity of the claims?

I'm guessing it hasn't occurred to you that they did that to give people an idea of the poor health of Osama Bin Laden at the time of the attacks. The evidence that the U.S. not only knew about Osama bin Laden's condition, but actually treated him in one of their hospitals abroad a few months prior to 9/11 can be seen in articles such as this one:

Report: bin Laden treated at US hospital | upi.com

Quoting from the article:

**
PARIS, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- A CIA agent allegedly met with suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in July, while the Saudi underwent treatment for kidney problems at an American hospital in Dubai, France's Le Figaro newspaper reported Wednesday.

Bin Laden reportedly checked into the American Hospital Dubai, a 100-bed, acute-care general hospital, July 4 and stayed until July 14. He arrived from Quetta, Pakistan, accompanied by his personal doctor and a close aide -- possibly Ayman el Zawahiri, a leader of Egypt's Islamic Jihad, now bin Laden's right hand man, the newspaper said.

Le Figaro cited a "professional partner" linked to the hospital's management as its source.
**

As to the source of information, mediabiasfactcheck.com has no problems with upi.com, for those who trust its ratings (I definitely don't):
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/unite...rnational-upi/


There are other articles on OBL's stay in the American Hospital in Dubai. Here's one:

Bin Laden's Stay in an American Hospital in July, 2001. He Was in "Our" Hands, but Nobody Cared. | garynorth.com

[Phoenyx]

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail [link in original to a video], a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com

Wow... Look at all those claims and then the conclusion that is pretended to be a fact. The report wasn't released until a month after it was originally supposed to be complete. That doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest. It also doesn't mean it was delayed since there was no requirement to finish by a certain date. Almost all investigations are not completed on time because of factors that don't prove a conspiracy.

Neither I nor Corbett said that the the investigation report taking an extra meant that a conspiracy was proven. Corbett doesn't actually mention the completion time of the report at all in the quote above. He -does- mention that the investigation was delayed, however, and he links to an article with evidence that this was happening. The article is here:

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation | cryptome.org

I'll quote the introduction:

**
Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation

Documents and Interviews Are Subject Of Tense Talks as Tight Deadline Looms

By SCOT J. PALTROW
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- For the past seven months, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission, has been looking into the events leading up to the 2001 attacks.

But so far the probers have made little progress. The commission is embroiled in tense negotiations over the level of access it will have to White House documents and the federal personnel it wants to interview. Investigators have received only a small portion of the documents they are seeking and have just begun conducting interviews within the last week, according to commission spokesman Al Felzenberg.

That means that the commission may not be able to complete an exhaustive investigation before its deadline next May, according to some of its 10 commissioners and others familiar with its work. The commission has almost 60 staffers, many of whom have clearances to see classified documents. At their disposal is a secure facility at a secret location so that they can read those documents. And they have a $14 million budget to last until May. But from the commission's inception, commissioners and others say, the White House has put obstacles in its way.
**

The commission asked for funding and didn't receive all that it asked for. That doesn't mean it was underfunded and certainly doesn't prove a coverup or conflict of interest.

I agree that not giving the commission the funding it asked for doesn't prove anything, but it's more than just not giving the commission the money it wanted. As Wikipedia points out:

**
The Bush Administration has further been accused of attempting to derail the commission by giving it one of the smallest independent commission funding levels in recent history ($3 million),[8] and by giving the commission a very short deadline.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...enry_Kissinger

[Phoenyx]

I imagine Corbett meant that it was the only official investigation that was in charge of investigating all the elements of 9/11, not just specific parts of it.

If that was what Corbett meant then that was Corbett lying to you. The 9/11 commission had a specific task and that task was not to investigate all elements of 9/11.
The report can be found here.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-911REPORT.pdf
Their mission as given to them can be found on page xv of the preface. They were looking at the facts and circumstances of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. WTC 7 was not attacked by terrorists. It was collateral damage as a result of the twin towers falling. The report also doesn't name the businesses located in the twin towers or provide the names of most of the people that died that day. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I imagine you know that the notion that WTC 7 was just collateral damage, rather than the result of a controlled demolition is something that still hasn't been settled.

Only an idiot would argue that failure to include things means it didn't happen or it shows some conspiracy.

Again with the ad hominems -.-. You really should try to stop using them so much.

[Phoenyx]

9/11 conspiracy theories fall into two main categories:

They let it happen
Elements of the US government knew that the 9/11 attacks were coming, but deliberately did nothing to stop them.

They made it happen
Elements of the US government were involved in planning and executing the attacks (this is by far the most popular category, for obvious reasons).

You're forgetting the third category, which Corbett illustrated in the video that I linked to in the opening post, mainly "It was all Osama's fault".

The first question at this point must be WHY? Did the USG have a plausible motive for wanting the Twin Towers, and as much of the Pentagon as possible, destroyed?

The usual explanation is that the Bush-Cheney gang needed an excuse to invade Iraq. So they carried out the 9/11 attacks - or at the very least let them happen – and pinned them on 15 Saudis, 2 Emiratis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 0 Iraqis.

Convinced? Then we can go ahead and speculate how they may have done it.

I've found that it's generally easier to see what was done then it figure out why it was done. That being said, I do believe that the attacks were orchestrated in order to further the goals of the military industrial complex. Interestingly, the pilot episode of a short lived X-files spinoff series called "The Lone Gunmen" (pun on the official JFK assassination theory of Oswald being a lone guman) that has a terrorist group attempting to crash a passenger aircraft into one of the Twin Towers by remote control. Interestingly, the episode aired months before 9/11. Even more interestingly, there is evidence that remote controlled aircraft were involved in 9/11 as well. There's a fandom page on the subject:
https://the-lone-gunmen.fandom.com/w...11_controversy

Here's a clip from the episode:

What you might call the standard ‘truther’ theory of controlled demolition is here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ower-Exploding

I actually linked to your thread at the bottom of my opening post. I posted in 9/11 threads for years a while back, so I'm certainly familiar with a lot of the material. I may take a closer look at your thread later.

[Controlled Opposition]

Follow the money.

[Phoenyx]

Follow the money.

Agreed. The 9/11 Commission, on the other hand, argued that the question was of "little practical significance":

**
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.
**

Source:
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Chapter 5: Al Qaeda aims at the American Homeland

[Tranquillus in Exile]

There are other articles on OBL's stay in the American Hospital in Dubai.

I have never seen the point of these stories about bin Laden’s health. Nobody said that bin Laden personally took part in executing the 9/11 attacks.

In any case ...

On Nov. 10, 2001, he gave an interview to a Pakistani journalist, who wrote that the terrorist kingpin did not appear ill.
"My kidneys are all right," bin Laden reportedly said. "I did not go to Dubai."

https://eu.southcoasttoday.com/story...n/50424137007/

And he was still alive in 2011 when the SEALs got him, unless you believe the conspiracy theories about that.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I didn't watch it for hours, but I also watched for a bit live when it happened. Back then, I believed the official narrative myself.



Apparently you missed the CBS broadcast that day, which Corbett's article linked to. It's here:



Osama Bin Laden's name comes up at around 4 minutes, 10 seconds in.



Ah, I think I see your confusion now. Corbett didn't mention it, but it seems clear that he meant within minutes after the -second- alleged aircraft, not the first.



Corbett's video doesn't, no, but the CBS video he links to, and which I've linked to above, certainly does.

You claimed the reporters were reporting that in minutes. The second plane hit 15 minutes after the first one. The video you are showing clearly shows both towers have been hit with planes. This is NOT minutes after the first plane hit.
At 3:25 in the video they say about the FBI, they are in the same mode as we are trying to figure out what is going on.
So this clearly shows that the claim that within minutes they knew it was Osama Bin Laden is false.
Are you willing to admit that the video you gave as evidence contains a lie? Yes/No?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I imagine you know that the notion that WTC 7 was just collateral damage, rather than the result of a controlled demolition is something that still hasn't been settled.



Again with the ad hominems -.-. You really should try to stop using them so much.

Provide your evidence that it was a controlled demolition. That means you need to tell us when the charges were place. Until you can provide evidence of charges being placed your argument is that of a conspiracy nut.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Neither I nor Corbett said that the the investigation report taking an extra meant that a conspiracy was proven. Corbett doesn't actually mention the completion time of the report at all in the quote above. He -does- mention that the investigation was delayed, however, and he links to an article with evidence that this was happening. The article is here:

White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation | cryptome.org

I'll quote the introduction:

**
[B]Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2003
\

Tell us how this delay affected the veracity of the report. Simply pointing to a delay is a non sequitur unless you can provide evidence that it affected the truthfulness of the report. Once again, this is standard for conspiracy nuts. They throw out meaningless bullshit as if it has some relevance and imply that it proves the conspiracy. You are doing nothing here but following the standard procedure of conspiracy nuts. Why are you doing that? Are you incapable of rational thought? or are you a troll?

[Tranquillus in Exile]

This is the post I was referring to a couple of days ago (how many separate explosive charges would be required to demolish each tower in the ‘standard’ truther theory).

Data:
47 core columns
240 perimeter columns
70-80 stories up to the impact level.

The answer is (47 + 240) x 70 = 20,090.

Or if you allow that "they" only had to cut the columns every 2-3 stories, you could get the total down to about 8000.

I believe that this – or something like it - is an immediate deduction from the truther theory, but I have never seen these or any figures mentioned in their literature.
I guess they prefer not to know.

[Phoenyx]

There are other articles on OBL's stay in the American Hospital in Dubai. Here's one:

Bin Laden's Stay in an American Hospital in July, 2001. He Was in "Our" Hands, but Nobody Cared. | garynorth.com

I have never seen the point of these stories about bin Laden’s health. Nobody said that bin Laden personally took part in executing the 9/11 attacks.

If bin Laden was in fact on dialysis on 9/11, it stretches credibility to think that he was playing much of a role if any on that day. The fact of the matter is that even an FBI spokesman has admitted years after 9/11 that the FBI had no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. An article on this can be seen here:

No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.com

In any case ...

On Nov. 10, 2001, he gave an interview to a Pakistani journalist, who wrote that the terrorist kingpin did not appear ill.
"My kidneys are all right," bin Laden reportedly said. "I did not go to Dubai."

https://eu.southcoasttoday.com/story...n/50424137007/

Ah, so some Pakistani journalist claims to have had a chat with him where he allegedly denies being in Dubai, and that just washes away the Figaro story?

And he was still alive in 2011 when the SEALs got him, unless you believe the conspiracy theories about that.

Ah yes, the alleged SEAL raid. Corbett mentions it near the end of his 5 minute video. Quoting from said video:

**
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away [video link in original]. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn't recorded on video, in which he didn't resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team's members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
**

Source:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | corbettreport.com

[Hawkeye10]

Osama Bin Laden provoked America into making a catastrophic error, exactly as he planned it.

[Melchizedek = Michael]

Osama Bin Laden provoked America into making a catastrophic error, exactly as he planned it.

What happened to Osama Bin Laden?

[Phoenyx]

I didn't watch it for hours, but I also watched for a bit live when it happened. Back then, I believed the official narrative myself.

Apparently you missed the CBS broadcast that day, which Corbett's article linked to. It's here:



Osama Bin Laden's name comes up at around 4 minutes, 10 seconds in.

Ah, I think I see your confusion now. Corbett didn't mention it, but it seems clear that he meant within minutes after the -second- alleged aircraft, not the first.

Corbett's video doesn't, no, but the CBS video he links to, and which I've linked to above, certainly does.

You claimed the reporters were reporting that in minutes.

Corbett claimed this, yes.

The second plane hit 15 minutes after the first one. The video you are showing clearly shows both towers have been hit with planes. This is NOT minutes after the first plane hit.

Less than a minute after Ryan brings up Osama bin Laden, he mentions that it's 9:17am. That would make it about 30 minutes after the first aircraft allegedly crashed into the North tower. I'm ready to accept your concession that you were mistaken.

At 3:25 in the video they say about the FBI, they are in the same mode as we are trying to figure out what is going on.

I asked you to take a look at 4:10, not 3:25. Starting from around 4:10:
**
The intelligence community for some time has been warning in a steady drumbeat, Ryan, that Osama bin Laden has not been heard from now, frankly since the beginning of the year, the USS Cole incident rather, and they've been wondering when and if he will strike again, and they only believed it was a matter of time, and I believe that today, that is going to be their first suspicion, but we have no confirmation of that, I must underline, there's no confirmation that this is a terrorist attack, number 1, or number 2, that it's Osama bin Laden involvement, but I can tell you right now, that is what they are thinking, that is the working premise, and we'll just have to see as the day unfolds what they discover. Jim, as we sit here at 9:17...
**

Now, you may argue that a working premise is not the same thing as knowing it's true, and I'd agree with you there, but while Corbett may have somewhat exagerated the degree of certainty, it's clear that Osama bin Laden was painted as the most likely culprit very early on in the media.