103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9/11 Criminal Co-Conspirators

[The Translucent Amoebae]

On Jan 17, 11:42 am, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
> "Ralph" <nos...@noway.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1iaudqa.1i7x92h71hv6iN%nospam@noway.net...
>
> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >> 103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9-11 Criminal Co-Conspirators
>
> >>http://www.whodidit.org
>
> > This list left out Osama and 19 hi-jackers.
>
> To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.
> Bin Laden's involvement has never been proven. The so-called "confession
> video" was a clumsy and obvious fake using a fat Arab actor who didn't even
> look like bin Laden. Apparently, to the incurious, this was sufficient.

What i've always, ( from the first tape i heard coming ostensibly from
Osama ) was that they seemed 'off' in so many ways...
Maybe it was translation errors or ... ??? whatever, but they always
seemed so --Obviously-- Faked...???
It's like-- Whoever made them, Never wanted intelligent listeners to
take them seriously...

There are just So Very Many Mysterious Layers to the Whole 911
'Thing'...???

 

[The Translucent Amoebae]

On Jan 17, 12:16 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article <EfydnT__v6UzMhLanZ2dnUVZ_s6mn...@comcast.net>,
> What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
> >"Ralph" <nos...@noway.net> wrote in message
> >news:1iaudqa.1i7x92h71hv6iN%nospam@noway.net...
> >> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9-11 Criminal Co-Conspirators
>
> >>>http://www.whodidit.org
>
> >> This list left out Osama and 19 hi-jackers.
>
> >To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.
>
> DNA, personal possessions, fingerprints, abandoned rented cars, video
> cameras in public places, goodby letters, boarding records, credit
> card traces, history of acts prior to 9/11/2001 ....
>
> No evidence here, only you you don't want to see it.

Sometimes when there is Too Much Evidence... That makes it kind of
suspicious...???

How can you tell when Too Much is Too Much...???
The Quality...???
The Context of the Evidence when forming a coherent timeline...???

i think that real evidence has a distinct flavor to it, and if it's
too sweet or sour or bitter or if it just smells a little off... Then
maybe you should take a step back and see if anyone else who's eaten
it, is throwing up...

And in the case of 911, there are plenty of people throwing up.

 

[Al Dykes]

In article <65idndpI5f4fvQ3anZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.net>,
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
><evidence@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:5upvo3t3irc0dhtv3m0fjudtpm4tsp7sq2@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:42:39 -0600, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1iaudqa.1i7x92h71hv6iN%nospam@noway.net...
>>>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9-11 Criminal Co-Conspirators
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.whodidit.org
>>>>
>>>> This list left out Osama and 19 hi-jackers.
>>>
>>>To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.
>>
>> Only tickets
>
>Faked. Show me.
>
>> videos
>
>Nope. Show me.
>
>> audio recordings
>
>Easily faked. Did they announce their names one by one? Positive voice ID
>by families, coworkers? How do you know the voices belonged to the 19 named
>hijackers?
>
>Have you seen this?
>
>http://www.geek.com/voice-cloning/
>
>Note the publishing date.
>

That product tries to speak like a human, something that is still hard
for computers to do.

It doesn't make someone else talk like you, me or, anyone specific.
Any Twoofer conspiracy based on it is bullshit.

 

[BDK]

In article <LLGdnaPRRO84_Q3anZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>,
JohnP@nospam.com says...
> "What Me THINK?" <__@____.___> wrote in a message
>
> >> To date, those 19 people are mysteriously still dead.
>
> > Wrong:
> > http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
> > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
>
> Nothing in those links supports your erroneous claim. The 19 hijackers are
> dead. Their families believe they are dead. They are hailed by some a
> martyrs. The entire myth that any of them were alive was based on a single
> BBC report indicating some people with the same names were alive. When the
> FBI released the photos, the BBC saw it was not the same people. There are
> no sane people who think any of the 19 dead hijackers is still alive.
>
> If you disagree, produce a recent photo of any of them.
>
> >> The so called "obvious fake" is only claimed by imbeciles...
>
> > The fat actor hired to play Bin Laden in the fake video is not even close.
> > http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
>
> Bin Laden, played by Bin Laden, looked exactly like Bin Laden.
>
> Suleiman Abu Ghaith and Ayman al-Zawahiri, also seen in the same video, were
> played by themselves as well.
>
> > Way too fat. Wrong nose, wrong facial structure, much darker complexion,
> > smiles far too much (Bin Laden was a somber-looking man when speaking.)
>
> Interesting. How long have you known him and how much time have you spent
> with him? Are you talking about the entire video or just the few stills
> presented on a kook site?
>
> > Check out the analysis matrix below - very direct, and conclusive - the
> > Nov. 2001 so-called "Confession Video" was a clumsy fake.
>
> Yes... calling it a fake calls for some clumsy analysis. One good move is to
> take 3 stills, label then Video #1, Video #2, etc. In 3 of the shots, use a
> head shot, straight on. Then offer a 3/4 profile for comparison.
>
> http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html#Fake bin Laden confession tape?
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html
>
> http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html
>
>
> > Now who would want to fake a confession from Osama bin Laden? Hmmm....
>
> Maybe a conspiracy kook who wanted to sell more books and videos.
>
> But then, if you watch the tape, rather than relying on a single still from
> a kook web site, you can see it's obviously OBL.
>
> If you actually did some research, you'd know OBL has mentioned his
> complicity in the attacks several time, as have several leaders of Al Qaeda.
> OBL's video, "The 19 Martyrs" is shown on Al Jazeera...
>
> ,,, but then, you've never proven to be educated enough to do research and
> view the totality of evidence. You are content to pick and choose bits and
> pieces from kook sites and pretend you know all there is to know.
>
>
>
>

I hope these kooktards are never involved in a real life lineup, the
real perp will probably walk, while some poor ******* the cops pulled
out of the drunk tank will get ID'ed as the bad guy.

BDK

 

[Vandar]

What Me Worry? wrote:
> "John P." <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:tcmdnYZ0A4dsuw3anZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in a message
>>
>>
>>>To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.
>>>Bin Laden's involvement has never been proven.
>>
>>To date, those 19 people are mysteriously still dead.
>
>
> Wrong:
>
> http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
>
>
>>> The so-called "confession video" was a clumsy
>>>and obvious fake using a fat Arab actor who didn't
>>>even look like bin Laden. Apparently, to the
>>>incurious, this was sufficient.
>>
>>The so called "obvious fake" is only claimed by imbeciles...
>
> <standard k00k ad hominem mercy-snipped>
>
> The fat actor hired to play Bin Laden in the fake video is not even close.
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
>
> Way too fat. Wrong nose, wrong facial structure, much darker complexion,
> smiles far too much (Bin Laden was a somber-looking man when speaking.)
> Check out the analysis matrix below - very direct, and conclusive - the Nov.
> 2001 so-called "Confession Video" was a clumsy fake.
>
> Now who would want to fake a confession from Osama bin Laden? Hmmm....

Because it promotes the conspiracy theory agenda.

Would you like to be tried for murder using the "truther" standard of
evidence?

 

[Vandar]

The Translucent Amoebae wrote:

> On Jan 17, 12:16 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <EfydnT__v6UzMhLanZ2dnUVZ_s6mn...@comcast.net>,
>>What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ralph" <nos...@noway.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1iaudqa.1i7x92h71hv6iN%nospam@noway.net...
>>>
>>>>Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9-11 Criminal Co-Conspirators
>>
>>>>>http://www.whodidit.org
>>
>>>>This list left out Osama and 19 hi-jackers.
>>
>>>To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.
>>
>>DNA, personal possessions, fingerprints, abandoned rented cars, video
>>cameras in public places, goodby letters, boarding records, credit
>>card traces, history of acts prior to 9/11/2001 ....
>>
>>No evidence here, only you you don't want to see it.
>
>
> Sometimes when there is Too Much Evidence... That makes it kind of
> suspicious...???
>
> How can you tell when Too Much is Too Much...???
> The Quality...???
> The Context of the Evidence when forming a coherent timeline...???
>
> i think that real evidence has a distinct flavor to it, and if it's
> too sweet or sour or bitter or if it just smells a little off... Then
> maybe you should take a step back and see if anyone else who's eaten
> it, is throwing up...
>
> And in the case of 911, there are plenty of people throwing up.

Yeah, because "how many people believe it" is such a reliable way to
determine the authenticity of something.

 

[Iarnrod]

On Jan 17, 11:34

 

[Iarnrod]

On Jan 18, 5:56

 

[Iarnrod]

On Jan 18, 5:51