So, uhh.. was 9/11 an inside job or nah?

[xxCivicxx]

"nobody knew who bin laden was"

not the average American, no, but he was known

you're a fucking idiot, though, don't reply to me anymore

So you repeated and AGREED WITH what I just said, you STILL have offered 0 evidence refuting anything in those videos I posted OR the questions I posted on the first page, you say that Bill Cooper predicting an attack was "coincidence", you think piece of scrap metal = a plane, and yet I'M the idiot?

Ok champ.

And once again, if bin laden was such a threat back then, and a NEWS STATION was able to track him down, then WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST ARREST HIM BACK THEN? Wouldn't that have completed prevented 9/11?

 

[Trillfate]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

Wow

@blackamerica

Sir, you didnt read my post. Bill Cooper, in his "prediction" video, references a journalistic piece done on Osmaa Bin Laden a few days before, and in that piece, based on interviewing Bin Laden, the journalist says: Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Bill Cooper's comments were piggybacking off of that piece.

Bin Laden was known. We later found Bush received a memo 'Bin Laden poised to attack' before 9/11 , Bill Clinton spoke on him the DAY before 9/11 in an interview (which implies he was ASKED about him)

I understand we all get into debate mode,where no wants to budge, but when you are WRONG, you are WRONG. Be a man and own it.

Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Idc if it was Bill Cooper or Bill Cosby..... 9/11 was predicted by somebody, correct?

Oh ok...

 

[xxCivicxx]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

 

[S2J]

@xxCivicxx

You keep asking more questions. You're basically just hoping to make enough of a funk to cause doubt, but with NO SUBSTANCE to the acual premise at hand: did the US

Govt KNOWINGLY and purposely work with OBL on 9/11

The questions you're asking point to areas of NEGLIGENCE, not complicity

Bc if you are arguing complicity, now you're roping in the Clinton administration, so you're sayig this government conspiracy crosses both Democratic and Republican offices, 2 separate presidencies

To which i can merely reply

Are you serious. ..

 

[S2J]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

Wow

@blackamerica

Sir, you didnt read my post. Bill Cooper, in his "prediction" video, references a journalistic piece done on Osmaa Bin Laden a few days before, and in that piece, based on interviewing Bin Laden, the journalist says: Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Bill Cooper's comments were piggybacking off of that piece.

Bin Laden was known. We later found Bush received a memo 'Bin Laden poised to attack' before 9/11 , Bill Clinton spoke on him the DAY before 9/11 in an interview (which implies he was ASKED about him)

I understand we all get into debate mode,where no wants to budge, but when you are WRONG, you are WRONG. Be a man and own it.

Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Idc if it was Bill Cooper or Bill Cosby..... 9/11 was predicted by somebody, correct?

Oh ok...

READ, YOU FUKING MORON

The journalist was relaying OBL's own words, bc they INTERVIEWED him.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

 

[xxCivicxx]

@xxCivicxx

You keep asking more questions. You're basically just hoping to make enough of a funk to cause doubt, but with NO SUBSTANCE to the acual premise at hand: did the US

Govt KNOWINGLY and purposely work with OBL on 9/11

The questions you're asking point to areas of NEGLIGENCE, not complicity

Bc if you are arguing complicity, now you're roping in the Clinton administration, so you're sayig this government conspiracy crosses both Democratic and Republican offices, 2 separate presidencies

To which i can merely reply

Are you serious. ..

You're trying to confuse the topic and I'm not gonna let you do it.

ALL of the questions that I have asked ARE VALID QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVENT. And if you watched those videos I posted you would have more questions yourself but you're being intellectual disingenuous when it comes to this topic for some reason

@the bold: I know exactly what words mean when I use them. You don't have to try and communicate for me. I mean everything I say EXACTLY how I say it

And yes, lots and lots of people across multiple government terms are COMPLICIT

And once again, there's substance all throughout this thread but people like you and @vibe are terrified of harsh truths

I live my life in pursuit of truth. Y'all can have all the extra shit

 

[VIBE]

Those videos are shit. They implicate many, many people and groups. I truly don't care about any of that because it can be applied to "they know about it but let it happen aka did nothing to stop the attacks."

It doesn't prove there were bombs, thermite or a missle/smaller plane.

Again, you have FAILED to prove any information/evidence supporting these claims. You're dancing.

"oh well someone was doing construction on the building"

Yeah? No shit. Buildings always get routine fixes. It's a 110-story building. Go check in with any high rise buildings and ask how routine this is and it's an everyday thing. Offices get gutted and renovated. The steel needs work and special coats of paint to prevent rusting and deteriorating.

Do you realize the amount of work needed to be done to drop the towers under a demo? The placement of the bombs and planes. The timing. That shit isn't easy at all.

bruh, if you wanna believe all that silly shit go ahead. I ain't with it. It's not because I don't think they couldn't do it, or wouldn't. It's because the EVIDENCE isn't there to support it. It just isn't.

 

[xxCivicxx]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

 

[xxCivicxx]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

Wow

@blackamerica

Sir, you didnt read my post. Bill Cooper, in his "prediction" video, references a journalistic piece done on Osmaa Bin Laden a few days before, and in that piece, based on interviewing Bin Laden, the journalist says: Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Bill Cooper's comments were piggybacking off of that piece.

Bin Laden was known. We later found Bush received a memo 'Bin Laden poised to attack' before 9/11 , Bill Clinton spoke on him the DAY before 9/11 in an interview (which implies he was ASKED about him)

I understand we all get into debate mode,where no wants to budge, but when you are WRONG, you are WRONG. Be a man and own it.

Bin Laden will attack in 3 weeks

Idc if it was Bill Cooper or Bill Cosby..... 9/11 was predicted by somebody, correct?

Oh ok...

READ, YOU FUKING MORON

The journalist was relaying OBL's own words, bc they INTERVIEWED him.

Read what?? The video of Bill Cooper speaking is a couple pages back. That's straight from his mouth.

Why would anyone defer to your 2nd/3rd hand info when they can just listen to his words?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

Obviously not, since the UN handles State matters and these dudes were operating across borders. Blame the UN or blame Clinton for not ignoring them. Like i said, he moved around often and went into countries of friendlies including the Taliban. There was already a team in Saudi Arabia since we have a base there (one of reasons Osama hatted the US), but we had limited movement. Those situations like Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti involved a leader directly killing his people or killing other tribes. I would actually say Black Hawk Down is the reason Clinton wasn't so eager to run everywhere to hunt this dude. That situation made him look bad because they weren't operating under UN sanction on that mission.

 

[xxCivicxx]

Those videos are shit. They implicate many, many people and groups. I truly don't care about any of that because it can be applied to "they know about it but let it happen aka did nothing to stop the attacks."

It doesn't prove there were bombs, thermite or a missle/smaller plane.

Again, you have FAILED to prove any information/evidence supporting these claims. You're dancing.

"oh well someone was doing construction on the building"

Yeah? No shit. Buildings always get routine fixes. It's a 110-story building. Go check in with any high rise buildings and ask how routine this is and it's an everyday thing. Offices get gutted and renovated. The steel needs work and special coats of paint to prevent rusting and deteriorating.

Do you realize the amount of work needed to be done to drop the towers under a demo? The placement of the bombs and planes. The timing. That shit isn't easy at all.

bruh, if you wanna believe all that silly shit go ahead. I ain't with it. It's not because I don't think they couldn't do it, or wouldn't. It's because the EVIDENCE isn't there to support it. It just isn't.

I posted an article of the wtc buildings being cleared of employees an night while other people went in and did nighttime work on the buildings in the 2 weeks leading up to 9/11 and YOU glossed over it like it didn't exist. You did that with most of the facts I have posted in this thread

Now you're trying to go back around in circles and I'm not gonna do that. ACTUALLY READ this thread and if you're still confused then just admit that you're scared of the truth.

You keep saying goofy shit like "oh the timing. it would be hard to do blah blah blah" which are just platitudes.

You keep saying that the vids that I posted are bullshit, trying to discredit them. Why is that? All of those vids are actually very liked on YT, and there's even MORE information in the comments over there.

I really urge you to go and learn. And if you don't want to do that then just admit that you're being intellectually lazy because you're scared

 

[S2J]

@xxCivicxx

You keep asking more questions. You're basically just hoping to make enough of a funk to cause doubt, but with NO SUBSTANCE to the acual premise at hand: did the US

Govt KNOWINGLY and purposely work with OBL on 9/11

The questions you're asking point to areas of NEGLIGENCE, not complicity

Bc if you are arguing complicity, now you're roping in the Clinton administration, so you're sayig this government conspiracy crosses both Democratic and Republican offices, 2 separate presidencies

To which i can merely reply

Are you serious. ..

You're trying to confuse the topic and I'm not gonna let you do it.

ALL of the questions that I have asked ARE VALID QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVENT. And if you watched those videos I posted you would have more questions yourself but you're being intellectual disingenuous when it comes to this topic for some reason

@the bold: I know exactly what words mean when I use them. You don't have to try and communicate for me. I mean everything I say EXACTLY how I say it

And yes, lots and lots of people across multiple government terms are COMPLICIT

And once again, there's substance all throughout this thread but people like you and @vibe are terrified of harsh truths

I live my life in pursuit of truth. Y'all can have all the extra shit

Dawg are u done? Who u think u talkin to i know fluff when i see it. My nigga you are not saying SHIT.

Stop bringing up them videos like its your ah-ha monent. They dont change anything. And the nerve to bring them up like they're new. Again, 9/11 is 14 YEARS OLD, happened IN the internet era. U think i haven't seen those videos 10 times before u probably even knew about em? ?? Foh nigga

 

[xxCivicxx]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

Obviously not, since the UN handles State matters and these dudes were operating across borders. Blame the UN or blame Clinton for not ignoring them. Like i said, he moved around often and went into countries of friendlies including the Taliban. There was already a team in Saudi Arabia since we have a base there (one of reasons Osama hatted the US), but we had limited movement. Those situations like Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti involved a leader directly killing his people or killing other tribes. I would actually say Black Hawk Down is the reason Clinton wasn't so eager to run everywhere to hunt this dude. That situation made him look bad because they weren't operating under UN sanction on that mission.

Interesting. A standing us president that can't get a sanction to eliminate a threat to his own people but can send troops into other countries to protect/hassle their people

Does that sound right to you?

 

[Jabu_Rule]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

Obviously not, since the UN handles State matters and these dudes were operating across borders. Blame the UN or blame Clinton for not ignoring them. Like i said, he moved around often and went into countries of friendlies including the Taliban. There was already a team in Saudi Arabia since we have a base there (one of reasons Osama hatted the US), but we had limited movement. Those situations like Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti involved a leader directly killing his people or killing other tribes. I would actually say Black Hawk Down is the reason Clinton wasn't so eager to run everywhere to hunt this dude. That situation made him look bad because they weren't operating under UN sanction on that mission.

Interesting. A standing us president that can't get a sanction to eliminate a threat to his own people but can send troops into other countries to protect/hassle their people

Does that sound right to you?

That's why conservatives don't like the United Nations. I would characterize all of those UN sanctioned missions as harassment though.

 

[xxCivicxx]

@xxCivicxx

You keep asking more questions. You're basically just hoping to make enough of a funk to cause doubt, but with NO SUBSTANCE to the acual premise at hand: did the US

Govt KNOWINGLY and purposely work with OBL on 9/11

The questions you're asking point to areas of NEGLIGENCE, not complicity

Bc if you are arguing complicity, now you're roping in the Clinton administration, so you're sayig this government conspiracy crosses both Democratic and Republican offices, 2 separate presidencies

To which i can merely reply

Are you serious. ..

You're trying to confuse the topic and I'm not gonna let you do it.

ALL of the questions that I have asked ARE VALID QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EVENT. And if you watched those videos I posted you would have more questions yourself but you're being intellectual disingenuous when it comes to this topic for some reason

@the bold: I know exactly what words mean when I use them. You don't have to try and communicate for me. I mean everything I say EXACTLY how I say it

And yes, lots and lots of people across multiple government terms are COMPLICIT

And once again, there's substance all throughout this thread but people like you and @vibe are terrified of harsh truths

I live my life in pursuit of truth. Y'all can have all the extra shit

Dawg are u done? Who u think u talkin to i know fluff when i see it. My nigga you are not saying SHIT.

Stop bringing up them videos like its your ah-ha monent. They dont change anything. And the nerve to bring them up like they're new. Again, 9/11 is 14 YEARS OLD, happened IN the internet era. U think i haven't seen those videos 10 times before u probably even knew about em? ?? Foh nigga

Lol did you really just try and take this back to middle school one-upping?

All 3 of those videos posted were released within the past 3 months so if you've REALLY watched them 10 times before then you sound EVEN MORE STUPID than I thought

I like how every time y'all posted trash I examined the trash y'all posted and told y'all exactly why it was trash yet everyone in here arguing against me is TERRIFIED to watch 3 15 minute videos.

This shit is ridiculous

 

[xxCivicxx]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

Obviously not, since the UN handles State matters and these dudes were operating across borders. Blame the UN or blame Clinton for not ignoring them. Like i said, he moved around often and went into countries of friendlies including the Taliban. There was already a team in Saudi Arabia since we have a base there (one of reasons Osama hatted the US), but we had limited movement. Those situations like Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti involved a leader directly killing his people or killing other tribes. I would actually say Black Hawk Down is the reason Clinton wasn't so eager to run everywhere to hunt this dude. That situation made him look bad because they weren't operating under UN sanction on that mission.

Interesting. A standing us president that can't get a sanction to eliminate a threat to his own people but can send troops into other countries to protect/hassle their people

Does that sound right to you?

That's why conservatives don't like the United Nations. I would characterize all of those UN sanctioned missions as harassment though.

I still think it would have been completely possible to pick bin laden up and "prevent 9/11" had the us government been interested in doing so back then.

The us does a ton of shit off the record and without UN consent, we've been strong-arming other countries for centuries

 

[Jabu_Rule]

He didn't predict it though lol he made a generalization.

At a time when 99% of america had no idea who osama bin laden was?

That's like me saying "Isis will carry out a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it will be bigger than 9/11."

Then fast forward some time and it happens.

It's too broad of a statement. Of course he was going to be right at some point.

Stop backpeddling

Nobody knew who Bin Laden was at the time. Yet his name was mentioned 3 weeks prior to the biggest terrorist attack in American history?

He was very known because he actually was successful in attacking a Navy ship in 2000, and two US embassies in 98. He was also on the Radar of the government because of the original 93 WTC attack that failed to bring down the buildings even though they actually did explode the bomb in the foundation.

So if this is the case then why wasn't he being monitored more closely in order to prevent another attack since he'd been so successful in the past? Apparently he'd committed multiple terrorist acts in the past but waited until 9/11 to deem him public enemy #1 of our time?

And no he was NOT known by the average american back then.

The question was, why was he mentioned when he wasn't on anybodies Radar? That statement was false. Most of his activity happened under Bill Clinton, whom wasn't in the habit of invading countries to get to people unless it was UN sanctioned. A lot of Warhawks weren't thrilled with his response.

Ok so then if he was on people's radar back then then why were news stations able to find him and interview him yet the US government couldn't find him to bring him to justice for his multiple terrorist acts?

Because, at that point, you would be invading a foreign land, and Bill Clinton wasn't about that. Remember, Bush requested that the Taliban hand over Osama and only invaded afterward they denied the request. A journalist isn't a threat and they go behind the lines all the time.

You're talking about two different leaders in a post and pre 9\11 world. They handled things differently. Like i said, people weren't thrilled that Clinton didn't do more to capture him, and 9\11 eliminated all need for diplomacy at least when dealing with that particular target.

But he had already committed terrorist acts in the 90s so he WAS a thread according to that, correct?

Didn't the us bomb bosnia under clinton?(black hawk down)

Didn't the us invade haiti under clinton?

Didn't the us bomb iraq under clinton?

SMH. Anything under Clinton that the United States was involved in had UN sanctions. You're also talking about state sanction tyranny vs terrorist networks that operated across borders in the lands of allies (we were on good terms with the Taliban before then). Btw Black Hawk Down was Somalia, another UN mission. It wasn't as easy going after foreign targets, especially when they weren't state sanctioned (until the Taliban was blamed for harboring him under Bush), and even then Clinton would most likely get the UN involved.

So clinton couldn't have gotten a UN sanction to go pick up a dude responsible for multiple terrorist attacks on us soil? Especially since most sanctions were for going after terrorists?

Obviously not, since the UN handles State matters and these dudes were operating across borders. Blame the UN or blame Clinton for not ignoring them. Like i said, he moved around often and went into countries of friendlies including the Taliban. There was already a team in Saudi Arabia since we have a base there (one of reasons Osama hatted the US), but we had limited movement. Those situations like Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti involved a leader directly killing his people or killing other tribes. I would actually say Black Hawk Down is the reason Clinton wasn't so eager to run everywhere to hunt this dude. That situation made him look bad because they weren't operating under UN sanction on that mission.

Interesting. A standing us president that can't get a sanction to eliminate a threat to his own people but can send troops into other countries to protect/hassle their people

Does that sound right to you?

That's why conservatives don't like the United Nations. I would characterize all of those UN sanctioned missions as harassment though.

I still think it would have been completely possible to pick bin laden up and "prevent 9/11" had the us government been interested in doing so back then.

The us does a ton of shit off the record and without UN consent, we've been strong-arming other countries for centuries

Possibly. They would have to had did what Bush did and invade a foreign country that wasn't on their own considered hostile until after 9/11 when they wouldn't hand dude over without direct evidence (I guess they wanted dna samples). I'm talking about a particular US president. He wasn't even always in Afghanistan. Certain places like Saudi Arabia, we weren't going to invade. He also operated in lawless regions. Whatever was done off the record at the time of other presidents is on them. Clinton operated a certain way. You're also talking about what was considered a new entity at the time that wasn't sanctioned by a particular State unlike past terrorist organisations. The Taliban got caught slipping following their biblical principles of not insulting a guest or handing him over to a rabid crowd. Hey, Obama gave no fucks, so i guess he's more trill, but he's still operating in a post 9/11 world.

 

[VIBE]

Regardless, I will believe the government didn't bring down the towers.

Regardless, you will believe the government brought down the towers.

I believe in evidence.

You believe in making randomness connections that support your argument.

At the end of the day, who gives a fuck. Believe what you want. It changes nothing. It does nothing.

 

[xxCivicxx]

Regardless, I will believe the government didn't bring down the towers.

Regardless, you will believe the government brought down the towers.



I believe in evidence.

You believe in making connections that support your argument.

At the end of the day, who gives a fuck. Believe what you want. It changes nothing. It does nothing.

Lol you keep trying to take it there but you've been schooled throughout this entire thread.

You number one fallback is 'all of the discrepancies are just random coincidence'

You're doing everything in your power to wiggle around this issue instead of just watching the videos and admitting that you don't know what you're talking about