Given how frequently this seems to recur, it is time to put the matter of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 to bed definitively. This thread offers a number of pieces of evidence—in no particular order—conclusively proving that any claim to the contrary is not merely unreasonable, but ludicrous.
Osama bin Laden (supposedly) only denied responsibility ONCE (9/16/2001). I say supposedly because at the time, he was neither in an area from which he could communicate directly to the Pakistani newspaper that published this purported denial, nor had access to two-way communications technology (this was not until he settled at a safe house in late September).
An al-Qaeda laptop recovered by U.S. forces belonging to Ayman al-Zawahiri featured a draft statement taking responsibility and even somewhat apologizing to Americans, noting that Tel Aviv ought to have been attacked and would have been were it not for open and overt American support of Israel:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1714456213096726769?s=20
In 2009, he released a statement attributing the attacks by and large to American support of Israel, urging Americans to seek more of their congresspeople and demand further investigations to prove this was so:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1712782913849164036?s=20
In 2006, he unequivocally made clear that he had directed the hijackers and personally selected them:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1711065383623401944?s=20
In April 2002, in the introduction to the al-Qaeda video release of the Last Will & Testament of hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari, bin Laden devotes several minutes to a lengthy recounting of the personal qualities of each hijacker:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1708004745334378594?s=20
In late December 2001, after successfully escaping from Tora Bora alive, bin Laden posted a lengthy video on the attacks, listed the reasons justifying them, and concluded with poetry and praise for the hijackers, delivered with great passion and emotion:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1707108005420962186?s=20
In 2006, al-Qaeda released a nearly 100-minute documentary (Knowledge Is For Acting Upon: The Manhattain Raid) on the plotting of the attacks, featuring unseen footage of the hijackers, all manner of previously unknown details and facts, and overtly and unambiguously taking full credit:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1696391964831494492?s=20
In 2015, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) referenced his role in the attacks in a letter to Barack Obama (something he had repeatedly admitted, since arriving at Guantanamo and even before when tortured by CIA at a variety of black sites). He also directly references bin Laden’s role and culpability:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1620860130308009985?s=20
In 2002, KSM and Ramzi bin al-Shibh met with al-Jazeera journalist Yosri Fouda and for a full weekend admitted to the plot, their (al-Qaeda’s) responsibility, and even shared key insight and details, as well as provided Fouda with proof such as photos of the hijackers IDs (never publicly released), the receipts from bank transactions with the hijackers (facilitated by Mustafa al-Hawsawi).
Fouda published a book about the entire ordeal (Capture and Kill)
Fouda published a book about the entire ordeal (Capture and Kill)
Every al-Qaeda member has virtually immediately accepted culpability. None have even wasted a minute denying or otherwise claiming to not have been culpable. To the contrary, most express remorse only that they were not tasked as one of the hijackers. This goes for everyoe from Walid bin Attash (Khallad/Silver) to Ali al-Bahlul and beyond.
The U.S. confirmed it within 45 minutes when the FBI learned that both Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were on the flight that just crashed into the Pentagon. They were the only 2 of the 19 hijackers with confirmed al-Qaeda ties, especially al-Mihdhar, whose father-in-law, Ahmed al-Hada, was a longtime friend of Osama’s and whose very home was used as the al-Qaeda switchboard for years (all phone calls were routed through al-Hada’s house).
FBI Agent Ali Soufan was in Yemen the very day of the attacks for the USS Cole investigation, another al-Qaeda attack (this one had occurred in October 2000). That day, he was interviewing Abu Jandal, Osama’s former longtime bodyguard and head of protection. Jandal himself was stunned and refused to believe al-Qaeda was responsible, but Soufan cleverly had just less than an hour earlier walked Jandal through a photobook of dozens of al-Qaeda members, asking him which he knew or had interacted with. Unknowingly, Jandal had identified at least 7 of the hijackers.
Last but certainly not least, on October 29, 2004, bin Laden took direct credit again in a lengthy statement on the attacks:
There is much, much more. This ought to be sufficient, at least for now.aljazeera.com/news/2004/11/1…
There is much, much more. This ought to be sufficient, at least for now.aljazeera.com/news/2004/11/1…
NOTE: End of thread.
@threadreaderapp unroll
PART 2: With a specific focus on the evidence disproving the notion of a government operation, either by the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or anyone else.
The collapse of Building 7 is often cited in conspiracy theories, but multiple official investigations and scientific studies support the conclusion that it resulted from fire, not explosives. Debris from the North Tower ignited fires on numerous floors of Building 7, some of which burned uncontrollably due to a failed sprinkler system. The heat from these fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to the failure of a key structural column and ultimately triggering the building's collapse. Numerous other instances of fire, arson, etc., across the country and world feature similar and oftentimes identical collapse for the very same reasons.
Investigative findings revealed no evidence of a blast event or pre-rigged explosives within the building. Additionally, the phrase "pull it" used by Larry Silverstein, the developer of Building 7, in a PBS documentary, was clarified to mean pulling out the remaining contingent of firefighters, not ordering a demolition. These facts, drawn from reliable sources such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and more dispel the notion of a controlled demolition.
Investigative findings revealed no evidence of a blast event or pre-rigged explosives within the building. Additionally, the phrase "pull it" used by Larry Silverstein, the developer of Building 7, in a PBS documentary, was clarified to mean pulling out the remaining contingent of firefighters, not ordering a demolition. These facts, drawn from reliable sources such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and more dispel the notion of a controlled demolition.
The assertion that thermite was found at the base of the World Trade Center towers is largely based on a 2009 paper published by a group of researchers. This paper, however, has faced widespread criticism and rejection from experts and authorities for several compelling reasons.
Firstly, it was published in a journal with a substandard peer-review process, and the editor resigned after the paper was published without her knowledge. Moreover, the paper lacked a clear chain of custody for the dust samples it examined, raising concerns about potential contamination or tampering. Another crucial point of contention is the absence of a plausible explanation within the paper for how the thermitic material could have been discreetly placed and ignited in the towers without detection or causing any visible signs of burning before the collapse.
Lastly, the paper failed to address the presence of other sources of iron-rich microspheres in the dust, such as steel wool, rust flakes, welding sparks, or coal fly ash. These multiple inadequacies, combined with the lack of acceptance from authoritative sources, militate heavily against the claim of thermite involvement in the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Firstly, it was published in a journal with a substandard peer-review process, and the editor resigned after the paper was published without her knowledge. Moreover, the paper lacked a clear chain of custody for the dust samples it examined, raising concerns about potential contamination or tampering. Another crucial point of contention is the absence of a plausible explanation within the paper for how the thermitic material could have been discreetly placed and ignited in the towers without detection or causing any visible signs of burning before the collapse.
Lastly, the paper failed to address the presence of other sources of iron-rich microspheres in the dust, such as steel wool, rust flakes, welding sparks, or coal fly ash. These multiple inadequacies, combined with the lack of acceptance from authoritative sources, militate heavily against the claim of thermite involvement in the collapse of the Twin Towers.
The fact that the passports of some hijackers survived the crash is not proof that they were planted. The only passport that was recovered from the World Trade Center site belonged to Satam al-Suqami, one of the hijackers of Flight 11, which hit the North Tower.
The passport was found by a passerby before the tower collapsed, and was handed over to a NYPD detective. The passport was not found in the rubble or the debris, but on the street near the tower. It was ejected from the plane during the impact or the explosion, and was carried by the air currents or the blast wave to the ground. This is not an impossible scenario at all, as a slew of objects, such as paper, clothing, seat cushions, human body parts (rib cages, limbs, heads), suitcases, luggage, and more were also found on the street after the crash. The body of a flight attendant strapped to a plane seat with her hands tied was recovered from the debris, one of the only nearly intact bodies found.
The passport itself was not in pristine condition, but had signs of damage and charring. This and other crash sites featured other identification documents from the hijackers as well. Several of their driver’s licenses, credit cards, and luggage tags, were also found.
The passport was found by a passerby before the tower collapsed, and was handed over to a NYPD detective. The passport was not found in the rubble or the debris, but on the street near the tower. It was ejected from the plane during the impact or the explosion, and was carried by the air currents or the blast wave to the ground. This is not an impossible scenario at all, as a slew of objects, such as paper, clothing, seat cushions, human body parts (rib cages, limbs, heads), suitcases, luggage, and more were also found on the street after the crash. The body of a flight attendant strapped to a plane seat with her hands tied was recovered from the debris, one of the only nearly intact bodies found.
The passport itself was not in pristine condition, but had signs of damage and charring. This and other crash sites featured other identification documents from the hijackers as well. Several of their driver’s licenses, credit cards, and luggage tags, were also found.
The fact that the U.S. has carried out false flag operations before or stood to benefit in some way does not at all prove that they were behind 9/11. The sheer losses and consequences alone render it horridly imbalanced. But more to the point, the operational modus operandi of intelligence agencies such as the CIA and military further undermines the notion of the 9/11 attacks being a false flag operation. These agencies are specifically known for their calculated, tightly controlled, and meticulously planned operations. The precision and discipline exhibited in their actions would contrast sharply with the chaotic and uncontrolled nature of the 9/11 attacks. CIA operations, for instance, are characterized by a strategic focus on specific objectives, careful risk assessment, and a commitment to minimizing collateral damage. The military, likewise, follows strict protocols to ensure the effectiveness and precision of its actions. The discrepancy between the disciplined approach of intelligence and military operations and the total lack of control in the 9/11 attacks highlights the implausibility of the U.S. government orchestrating such a complex and devastating event as a false flag operation for the purpose of something like justifying increased surveillance, which a far, far less damaging and chaotic event could've likewise achieved.
Moreover, false flag operation of this magnitude would require the involvement and coordination of hundreds if not thousands of people. Unlike al-Qaeda, who just had to focus on carrying it out without being detected, the U.S. or Israeli government--had they been behind the events--would have had to coordinate with countless intelligence agents, demolition experts, bomb makers, and others for not just the event itself, but the follow-up and cover-up.
People would be involved in creating remote-controlled planes or overseeing their flight path (or designing holograms of an incredibly realistic nature and the subsequent false flight logs, data, etc). Others for the coordination of the DNA testing, background investigation into the false hijackers' lives and actions within the U.S., etc. People for every minute detail, such as falsifying call records from passengers (if they were not on board in reality) or creating the fake persona, family members, etc. To expect loyalty from these people in the ensuing public scrutiny and legal investigations is simply, wholly, indisputably, undeniably impossible. No one with the slightest shred of intelligence and historical understanding would dare undertake such reckless and gravely irresponsible behavior.
Moreover, false flag operation of this magnitude would require the involvement and coordination of hundreds if not thousands of people. Unlike al-Qaeda, who just had to focus on carrying it out without being detected, the U.S. or Israeli government--had they been behind the events--would have had to coordinate with countless intelligence agents, demolition experts, bomb makers, and others for not just the event itself, but the follow-up and cover-up.
People would be involved in creating remote-controlled planes or overseeing their flight path (or designing holograms of an incredibly realistic nature and the subsequent false flight logs, data, etc). Others for the coordination of the DNA testing, background investigation into the false hijackers' lives and actions within the U.S., etc. People for every minute detail, such as falsifying call records from passengers (if they were not on board in reality) or creating the fake persona, family members, etc. To expect loyalty from these people in the ensuing public scrutiny and legal investigations is simply, wholly, indisputably, undeniably impossible. No one with the slightest shred of intelligence and historical understanding would dare undertake such reckless and gravely irresponsible behavior.
The costs America suffered far, far outweighed the benefits. The American relationship with Saudi Arabia alone (one of the most key relationships it has, arguably second only after Israel) was immediately imperiled. The Saudis chose, the very next day after the attacks, to send nine million extra barrels of oil to the U.S. over the next two weeks (which is why there was only a slight inflation spike despite the worst terror attacks in world history).
The economic and geopolitical fallout, damage to international relations, and the erosion of trust in the U.S. government would far exceed any perceived benefits from enhanced surveillance. Such a drastic and risky endeavor would be an indescribably imprudent and most ignorant, harebrained strategy for achieving any purported surveillance goals, especially considering the intricate web of global interdependencies.
The economic and geopolitical fallout, damage to international relations, and the erosion of trust in the U.S. government would far exceed any perceived benefits from enhanced surveillance. Such a drastic and risky endeavor would be an indescribably imprudent and most ignorant, harebrained strategy for achieving any purported surveillance goals, especially considering the intricate web of global interdependencies.
The Saudis suffered enormously and were not behind it either. They were cooperating with the CIA, but not to carry the attacks out. Instead, the Agency was pursuing a plan to infiltrate al-Qaeda, which it executed upon learning about Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, the only two hijackers with documented ties to the organization.
The intelligence community was in dire need of informants and sought to penetrate the group. Since the two men were in the U.S. (where the CIA is prohibited from operating by law), a common strategy was employed—asking Saudi intelligence to monitor and cultivate them as informants. However, due to their strict operational security, this approach failed, and Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi intelligence asset overseeing the operation in the U.S., eventually lost track of them.
The intelligence community was in dire need of informants and sought to penetrate the group. Since the two men were in the U.S. (where the CIA is prohibited from operating by law), a common strategy was employed—asking Saudi intelligence to monitor and cultivate them as informants. However, due to their strict operational security, this approach failed, and Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi intelligence asset overseeing the operation in the U.S., eventually lost track of them.
The Dancing Israelis proves nothing more than that they were aware, like the global intelligence community was, that something was soon going down and it would be major.
There was a significant--even massive--amount of chatter in 2001, particularly during the summer, and Mossad was consistently gathering information. It is virtually impossible that they would have possessed precise details or knowledge of key operatives. The most plausible scenario is that the group operating in or from NYC (during 2001, Mossad operatives disguised as Israeli art students were detected across the nation attempting to access government facilities and engage with federal agents) immediately recognized the gravity of the attack they had anticipated. This recognition stemmed from the fact that the weather was clear and no pilot error could account for the crash. Furthermore, they were aware that the WTC had been targeted previously and remained a high-priority site for potential attacks. Consequently, their jubilation and excitement following the impact of the first flight (AA 11) were based on this understanding.
There was a significant--even massive--amount of chatter in 2001, particularly during the summer, and Mossad was consistently gathering information. It is virtually impossible that they would have possessed precise details or knowledge of key operatives. The most plausible scenario is that the group operating in or from NYC (during 2001, Mossad operatives disguised as Israeli art students were detected across the nation attempting to access government facilities and engage with federal agents) immediately recognized the gravity of the attack they had anticipated. This recognition stemmed from the fact that the weather was clear and no pilot error could account for the crash. Furthermore, they were aware that the WTC had been targeted previously and remained a high-priority site for potential attacks. Consequently, their jubilation and excitement following the impact of the first flight (AA 11) were based on this understanding.
The hijackers were not bumbling idiots or unprepared fools. They were the "perfect soldiers" as described in Terry McDermott's book of the same title.
Hani Hanjour was not at all a "bad" or inept pilot. He was the only one who had even already been a pilot for years, and was selected later on due to his extensive experience and training! This decision was made when it became apparent that Ramzi bin al-Shibh would not be granted a visa despite multiple attempts.
Each of the four hijacker-pilots individually chose their respective targets. Hanjour selected the Pentagon and conducted multiple trial runs along a route that took him past it. This was done for preparatory purposes, to assess the situation, and to gain familiarity with the target.
The hijackers were hardly illiterate or ignorant. Almost all came from educated backgrounds and were college educated, even many of the muscle hijackers. See this study for insight into how impressive and well-trained they were:
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
Hani Hanjour was not at all a "bad" or inept pilot. He was the only one who had even already been a pilot for years, and was selected later on due to his extensive experience and training! This decision was made when it became apparent that Ramzi bin al-Shibh would not be granted a visa despite multiple attempts.
Each of the four hijacker-pilots individually chose their respective targets. Hanjour selected the Pentagon and conducted multiple trial runs along a route that took him past it. This was done for preparatory purposes, to assess the situation, and to gain familiarity with the target.
The hijackers were hardly illiterate or ignorant. Almost all came from educated backgrounds and were college educated, even many of the muscle hijackers. See this study for insight into how impressive and well-trained they were:
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
As Abu Muhammad al-Masri himself said in his book on 9/11 (featuring a length of several hundred pages): These conspiracy theories are themselves promoted by the American and Israeli governments to deter people from joining al-Qaeda and not regarding it as that powerful, incredible, capable, and organized of a group.
He laments that this seems to have worked, pointing out how many Arabs and Muslims themselves refuse to believe it, as if all Arabs and Muslims are somehow ignorant cave-dwellers and goat herders.
The book is titled “The September 11 Operations: Between Truth and Uncertainty”.
He laments that this seems to have worked, pointing out how many Arabs and Muslims themselves refuse to believe it, as if all Arabs and Muslims are somehow ignorant cave-dwellers and goat herders.
The book is titled “The September 11 Operations: Between Truth and Uncertainty”.
NOTE: End of Part 2.
@threadreaderapp unroll
@threadreaderapp PART 3: I’ll gradually keep adding to this as things come up.
@threadreaderapp Alex Jones did NOT at all predict 9/11 a few months before the attacks:
https://twitter.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1732715813218460113
The FBI’s 2006 dodging of the question as to why Osama bin Laden’s wanted poster (originally issued for the 1998 East Africa U.S. Embassy bombings) made no mention of 9/11 had nothing to do with a lack of evidence.
The omission is deliberate, for reasons lasting to this very day. It was a legal maneuver strategically aimed at facilitating the classification of al-Qaeda and any other War on Terror detainees as war criminals/enemy combatants rather than criminal defendants (who would be entitled to all manner of additional protection, rights, and more).
By refraining from explicitly tying bin Laden to the 9/11 events on the wanted poster, the FBI sought to maintain a legal framework that enabled the treatment of individuals associated with al-Qaeda under the umbrella of wartime protocols. To articulate otherwise would risk mandating or establishing grounds for criminal charges against bin Laden and undermine the legitimacy of employing military standards in counterterrorism efforts.
The attack on the USS Cole isn’t listed either, and no one has ever argued that wasn’t al-Qaeda’s doing.
The omission is deliberate, for reasons lasting to this very day. It was a legal maneuver strategically aimed at facilitating the classification of al-Qaeda and any other War on Terror detainees as war criminals/enemy combatants rather than criminal defendants (who would be entitled to all manner of additional protection, rights, and more).
By refraining from explicitly tying bin Laden to the 9/11 events on the wanted poster, the FBI sought to maintain a legal framework that enabled the treatment of individuals associated with al-Qaeda under the umbrella of wartime protocols. To articulate otherwise would risk mandating or establishing grounds for criminal charges against bin Laden and undermine the legitimacy of employing military standards in counterterrorism efforts.
The attack on the USS Cole isn’t listed either, and no one has ever argued that wasn’t al-Qaeda’s doing.
Despite the vast troves of classified information brought to light by Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, and slew of others, the complete lack of any credible proof linking the United States to the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks is undeniable and incontrovertible.
In spite of the inherent incentive for--and drive of--whistleblowers and leakers to seek and release the most explosive of content, there exists not a single shred of evidence—absolutely none—remotely proving, demonstrating, or even implicitly suggesting U.S. complicity in the events of 9/11, nor that of the Israel/Mossad.
The revelations from whistleblowers have shed enormous light on a broad range of aspects of government activities, oftentimes proving deeply disastrous and catastrophic in serious ways for the government, even almost irreparably so.
The comprehensiveness of the leaks, encompassing intricate, highly-classified details of government operations and international affairs, makes the absence of any incriminating documents sharply and glaringly conspicuous. If there were any legitimate grounds to suspect U.S. complicity in 9/11, these leaks would have brought them to the forefront. Yet, the silence remains resounding.
Even more to the point, that which has been released points directly to al-Qaeda. Leaks have featured the chaotic extent of the reaction the U.S. was willing to go to to prevent another “imminent attack” and even confirmed that a terrified Ariel Sharon was sick to his stomach the day of the attacks, recognizing immediately the potential that the whole world may very well turn harshly on Israel for their occurrence.
It is irrational, inconceivable, and wholly illogical to even consider the possibility of the attacks being anything other than the most brutal and unparalleled of blows America has ever been made to endure.
In spite of the inherent incentive for--and drive of--whistleblowers and leakers to seek and release the most explosive of content, there exists not a single shred of evidence—absolutely none—remotely proving, demonstrating, or even implicitly suggesting U.S. complicity in the events of 9/11, nor that of the Israel/Mossad.
The revelations from whistleblowers have shed enormous light on a broad range of aspects of government activities, oftentimes proving deeply disastrous and catastrophic in serious ways for the government, even almost irreparably so.
The comprehensiveness of the leaks, encompassing intricate, highly-classified details of government operations and international affairs, makes the absence of any incriminating documents sharply and glaringly conspicuous. If there were any legitimate grounds to suspect U.S. complicity in 9/11, these leaks would have brought them to the forefront. Yet, the silence remains resounding.
Even more to the point, that which has been released points directly to al-Qaeda. Leaks have featured the chaotic extent of the reaction the U.S. was willing to go to to prevent another “imminent attack” and even confirmed that a terrified Ariel Sharon was sick to his stomach the day of the attacks, recognizing immediately the potential that the whole world may very well turn harshly on Israel for their occurrence.
It is irrational, inconceivable, and wholly illogical to even consider the possibility of the attacks being anything other than the most brutal and unparalleled of blows America has ever been made to endure.
The notion that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative or and anything whatsoever to do with it or any element of American intelligence is along the most absurd and indescribably false notions to ever surface. Every single piece of evidence, every shred of concrete data, and every molecular parcel of demonstrable fact militates heavily against and completely contradicts the notion that he was ever a CIA operative.
There are video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden from the mid-1980s where he is vehemently denouncing America in lectures and persistently urging for a ban on any and all purchases that would even marginally benefit the U.S., to the extent that he states “not a single sip of Pepsi should be taken by any Muslim.”
The CIA and all of its top officials have denied that the U.S. ever recruited, trained, armed, or funded bin Laden during that time. Bin Laden himself (and al-Qaeda’s media) have too.
Independent journalists and authors who extensively researched the CIA's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict with the Soviets in the 1980s support the CIA's contention. The CIA has maintained that it did not support the Arab fighters, including bin Laden, who came to Afghanistan to fight in solidarity with a Muslim country. Additionally, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll wrote that the CIA archives contain no record of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s. The U.S. covertly financed and armed the Afghan mujahedin factions, specifically even the Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions, fighting Soviet forces. But it did not engage with any of the Arabs (who came to be known widely as the “Afghan Arabs”) ones at all.
Before he was even known in the West, bin Laden confirmed this unequivocally by stating to Robert Fisk:
"Personally, neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help."
In a second interview with Fisk for the The Independent, July 10, 1996, bin Laden repeated that position:
"We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies. Most of the weapons that came to Afghanistan were paid for by the Saudis on the orders of the Americans because Turki al-Faisal, the head of Saudi external intelligence, and the CIA were working together."
Even more indisputable evidence exists in the books of Michael Scheuer (who was chief of the CIA's bin Laden Issue Station) and @FlaggMiller's exceptional book, The Audacious Ascetic.
There are video and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden from the mid-1980s where he is vehemently denouncing America in lectures and persistently urging for a ban on any and all purchases that would even marginally benefit the U.S., to the extent that he states “not a single sip of Pepsi should be taken by any Muslim.”
The CIA and all of its top officials have denied that the U.S. ever recruited, trained, armed, or funded bin Laden during that time. Bin Laden himself (and al-Qaeda’s media) have too.
Independent journalists and authors who extensively researched the CIA's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict with the Soviets in the 1980s support the CIA's contention. The CIA has maintained that it did not support the Arab fighters, including bin Laden, who came to Afghanistan to fight in solidarity with a Muslim country. Additionally, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Steve Coll wrote that the CIA archives contain no record of any direct contact between a CIA officer and bin Laden during the 1980s. The U.S. covertly financed and armed the Afghan mujahedin factions, specifically even the Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions, fighting Soviet forces. But it did not engage with any of the Arabs (who came to be known widely as the “Afghan Arabs”) ones at all.
Before he was even known in the West, bin Laden confirmed this unequivocally by stating to Robert Fisk:
"Personally, neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help."
In a second interview with Fisk for the The Independent, July 10, 1996, bin Laden repeated that position:
"We were never at any time friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans support the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies. Most of the weapons that came to Afghanistan were paid for by the Saudis on the orders of the Americans because Turki al-Faisal, the head of Saudi external intelligence, and the CIA were working together."
Even more indisputable evidence exists in the books of Michael Scheuer (who was chief of the CIA's bin Laden Issue Station) and @FlaggMiller's exceptional book, The Audacious Ascetic.
Al-Qaeda’s video release of the Last Will and Testament of hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari featured footage of several of the muscle hijackers during their time in Afghanistan (beginning around 0:32 mark).
At the 1:16 mark or so, several of them are shown specifically altering/doctoring their passports. They both removed stamps and indicators that would shed light on their travels to places like Pakistan (which is known as a destination for those seeking to travel to Afghanistan), as well as added false ones suggesting travel to or through regions they wouldn’t ultimately ever visit.
At the 1:16 mark or so, several of them are shown specifically altering/doctoring their passports. They both removed stamps and indicators that would shed light on their travels to places like Pakistan (which is known as a destination for those seeking to travel to Afghanistan), as well as added false ones suggesting travel to or through regions they wouldn’t ultimately ever visit.
The US government DID NOT “mysteriously lose” trillions of dollars the day before 9/11, as conspiracy theorists claim. This is a categorically false and misleading allegation that distorts the facts about $2.3 trillion in accounting entries that were poorly documented due to outdated technology. On September 10, 2001 then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion in a speech, but he was NOT implying that the money was missing.
Instead, he was using the number to highlight the need for better financial management and modernization of the department’s systems. See the video of this part of his speech below, which makes it unambiguously clear!
These accounting problems were not a new revelation. They had been known and a subject of public concern for many years. The Pentagon's operations are highly complex, and its reliance on old financial systems made achieving transparent and efficient accounting extremely challenging. This issue was already recognized and steps were being taken to address it before Rumsfeld's announcement in 2001. Moreover, the specific transactions associated with the $2.3 trillion were all made in fiscal year 1999 and reported in early 2000, long before 9/10/2001.
Rumsfeld’s speech had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up! Why would he even have mentioned such a thing had the U.S. been behind the attacks that he'd have known were about to occur the very next morning?!
By the way, the same thing continued to occur and in 2016, $8 trillion couldn’t be accounted for, again due to poor practices and outdated technology. Conspiracy theorists that time claimed it was because the U.S. used the funds to build a massive spaceship capable of turning its fully invisible, like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek…..
Instead, he was using the number to highlight the need for better financial management and modernization of the department’s systems. See the video of this part of his speech below, which makes it unambiguously clear!
These accounting problems were not a new revelation. They had been known and a subject of public concern for many years. The Pentagon's operations are highly complex, and its reliance on old financial systems made achieving transparent and efficient accounting extremely challenging. This issue was already recognized and steps were being taken to address it before Rumsfeld's announcement in 2001. Moreover, the specific transactions associated with the $2.3 trillion were all made in fiscal year 1999 and reported in early 2000, long before 9/10/2001.
Rumsfeld’s speech had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or any cover-up! Why would he even have mentioned such a thing had the U.S. been behind the attacks that he'd have known were about to occur the very next morning?!
By the way, the same thing continued to occur and in 2016, $8 trillion couldn’t be accounted for, again due to poor practices and outdated technology. Conspiracy theorists that time claimed it was because the U.S. used the funds to build a massive spaceship capable of turning its fully invisible, like the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek…..
The assertion that no plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, is another falsehood. This claim is contradicted by a wealth of evidence and accounts, and its propagation only serves to distort the reality of the tragic events of 9/11.
First and foremost, a plethora of eyewitness accounts confirm the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. These accounts come from various individuals, including Pentagon personnel, journalists, and passersby. Their descriptions of a large commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon building are wholly consistent and corroborative.*
Moreover, physical evidence from the crash site supports the fact that it was indeed a plane that struck the Pentagon. Debris from a Boeing 757, the type of aircraft used for Flight 77, was found at the scene. This includes parts of the fuselage, engine components, and landing gear. Such evidence is consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner and not indicative of any other type of event or weapon.
Furthermore, data from the flight's black boxes, recovered from the wreckage, align with the conclusion that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The flight data recorder provided detailed information about the plane's speed, trajectory, and final moments, all of which are consistent with the observed damage and eyewitness reports.
Security camera footage from the Pentagon, although limited in clarity and frame rate, also captures the moment of impact, showing a large object, consistent with the size and speed of a commercial airliner, striking the Pentagon.
In addition to the physical and testimonial evidence, extensive investigations by various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), have conclusively determined that Flight 77, piloted by hijackers, crashed into the Pentagon. These investigations included analyses of radar data, flight data, and the coordination of the terrorist attacks that day.
Finally, the photos depict where body fragments were found on the first floor of the Pentagon after Flight 77 hit. Blue lettering are remains from Flight 77 passengers and crew, red lettering are remains from Pentagon staff, and black with yellow lettering are remains of the hijackers.
———————————————-
*Mary Lyman, a motorist on Interstate 395, observed the airplane’s steep, fast descent toward the ground. Her position on the highway gave her a clear view of the initial impact.
While cutting grass, Omar Campo witnessed the plane screaming overhead, felt the impact, and saw the area engulfed in fire.
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, detailed the plane’s loud screaming noise and its erratic wing movements, as if struggling to maintain balance. He also noted the plane hitting lampposts before impact.
Daryl Donley expressed his surprise upon realizing that the approaching object was a commercial passenger jet. Donley’s quick response led to him capturing some of the first photographs of the aftermath.
Mike Walter, a USA Today reporter driving on Washington Boulevard, recalled his disbelief at seeing a low-flying American Airlines jet. He likened its trajectory to that of a cruise missile, describing its direct path into the Pentagon.
Terrance Kean, a resident of a nearby apartment building, was drawn to the event by the loud jet engines. From his window, he observed the large passenger jet strike the Pentagon, noting the nose’s penetration into the portico followed by fire and smoke.
Tim Timmerman, a pilot, recognized the American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon. His expertise offered an additional layer of credibility to the observation.
In addition to these individuals, many other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike, as well as people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other adjacent areas, witnessed the crash.
First and foremost, a plethora of eyewitness accounts confirm the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. These accounts come from various individuals, including Pentagon personnel, journalists, and passersby. Their descriptions of a large commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon building are wholly consistent and corroborative.*
Moreover, physical evidence from the crash site supports the fact that it was indeed a plane that struck the Pentagon. Debris from a Boeing 757, the type of aircraft used for Flight 77, was found at the scene. This includes parts of the fuselage, engine components, and landing gear. Such evidence is consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner and not indicative of any other type of event or weapon.
Furthermore, data from the flight's black boxes, recovered from the wreckage, align with the conclusion that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The flight data recorder provided detailed information about the plane's speed, trajectory, and final moments, all of which are consistent with the observed damage and eyewitness reports.
Security camera footage from the Pentagon, although limited in clarity and frame rate, also captures the moment of impact, showing a large object, consistent with the size and speed of a commercial airliner, striking the Pentagon.
In addition to the physical and testimonial evidence, extensive investigations by various agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), have conclusively determined that Flight 77, piloted by hijackers, crashed into the Pentagon. These investigations included analyses of radar data, flight data, and the coordination of the terrorist attacks that day.
Finally, the photos depict where body fragments were found on the first floor of the Pentagon after Flight 77 hit. Blue lettering are remains from Flight 77 passengers and crew, red lettering are remains from Pentagon staff, and black with yellow lettering are remains of the hijackers.
———————————————-
*Mary Lyman, a motorist on Interstate 395, observed the airplane’s steep, fast descent toward the ground. Her position on the highway gave her a clear view of the initial impact.
While cutting grass, Omar Campo witnessed the plane screaming overhead, felt the impact, and saw the area engulfed in fire.
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, detailed the plane’s loud screaming noise and its erratic wing movements, as if struggling to maintain balance. He also noted the plane hitting lampposts before impact.
Daryl Donley expressed his surprise upon realizing that the approaching object was a commercial passenger jet. Donley’s quick response led to him capturing some of the first photographs of the aftermath.
Mike Walter, a USA Today reporter driving on Washington Boulevard, recalled his disbelief at seeing a low-flying American Airlines jet. He likened its trajectory to that of a cruise missile, describing its direct path into the Pentagon.
Terrance Kean, a resident of a nearby apartment building, was drawn to the event by the loud jet engines. From his window, he observed the large passenger jet strike the Pentagon, noting the nose’s penetration into the portico followed by fire and smoke.
Tim Timmerman, a pilot, recognized the American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon. His expertise offered an additional layer of credibility to the observation.
In addition to these individuals, many other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike, as well as people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other adjacent areas, witnessed the crash.
This article—first photo—from The Independent (not even an American newspaper) in 1993 is repeatedly used to assert that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset (a claim I’ve debunked further up in this thread as well). However, if one actually takes the time to simply READ the article, they learn that it does not at all mention or even remotely imply anything of this sort.
The article, in fact, confirms only that Osama and other “Afghan Arabs” only collaborated with Pakistan’s ISI. Furthermore, only three years later, in 1996, the very same paper featured an article, and this time prominently on the front page, by the very same journalist—Robert Fisk—making clear that Osama’s views, even if, for the sake of argument, were ever previously friendly towards the West, were certainly no longer so.
Finally, the notion that a single positive article could ever confirm such a ludicrous assertion, outweighed by mountains of evidence, is what’s called a hasty generalization and a classic fallacy! Just consider this:
The New York Times praised Hitler in 1938 for his economic reforms.
The BBC praised Stalin in 1945 for his role in defeating the Nazis.
The Washington Post praised Mao Zedong in 1976 for his economic achievements.
The Economist praised Pol Pot in 1975 for his victory over the Khmer Rouge.
The Guardian praised Kim Jong-il in 2011 for his leadership of North Korea.
Were all of these individuals CIA assets? Perhaps most ironically, any of them is actually far likelier to have ever been associated with the CIA in any fashion than Osama bin Laden ever was!
The article, in fact, confirms only that Osama and other “Afghan Arabs” only collaborated with Pakistan’s ISI. Furthermore, only three years later, in 1996, the very same paper featured an article, and this time prominently on the front page, by the very same journalist—Robert Fisk—making clear that Osama’s views, even if, for the sake of argument, were ever previously friendly towards the West, were certainly no longer so.
Finally, the notion that a single positive article could ever confirm such a ludicrous assertion, outweighed by mountains of evidence, is what’s called a hasty generalization and a classic fallacy! Just consider this:
The New York Times praised Hitler in 1938 for his economic reforms.
The BBC praised Stalin in 1945 for his role in defeating the Nazis.
The Washington Post praised Mao Zedong in 1976 for his economic achievements.
The Economist praised Pol Pot in 1975 for his victory over the Khmer Rouge.
The Guardian praised Kim Jong-il in 2011 for his leadership of North Korea.
Were all of these individuals CIA assets? Perhaps most ironically, any of them is actually far likelier to have ever been associated with the CIA in any fashion than Osama bin Laden ever was!
The notion that “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” overlooks not just science, but on top, the unique and specific properties of the Twin Towers’ architecture.
Not only did the jet fuel reach inconceivable temperatures, but their unique features rendered them even more vulnerable to collapse.
The Twin towers were among the first skyscrapers to use a tube frame structural system. This design consists of closely spaced perimeter columns to form a stiff exterior wall, resisting lateral loads such as wind pressure, and allowing the interior to be free of structural columns. The reliance on the perimeter columns for structural integrity meant that any significant damage to these columns could compromise the building's ability to stand. When the airplanes struck the towers, they destroyed several of these critical exterior columns, compromising the towers' structural integrity.
The floors of the towers were supported by lightweight, prefabricated trusses made of steel. These trusses supported lightweight concrete floors and were connected to the exterior walls and the core structure. The lightweight trusses were less robust against intense heat and fire. The fires ignited by the jet fuel from the airplanes caused the trusses to weaken and eventually collapse, leading to a pancake-style collapse of the floors. This process increased the load on the already damaged exterior columns, contributing further to the structural failure.
The steel structures of the WTC were coated with fireproofing material to protect them from the weakening effects of high temperatures. The impact of the airplanes dislodged significant portions of this fireproofing material, exposing the steel structure to intense heat from the burning jet fuel and office contents. Without adequate fireproofing, the steel weakened more rapidly under the fire's intense heat, contributing to the collapse.
The towers featured a central core housing elevators, utilities, and stairwells, surrounded by a large, open floor plan. The core's design meant that it was crucial for the building's structural integrity and for egress in an emergency. The impact and subsequent fires disrupted these core areas, cutting off escape routes for people above the impact zones and compromising critical structural components that contributed to the building's overall stability.
The combination of these architectural features with the unprecedented nature of the attacks—a high-speed collision with a large, fuel-laden commercial airliner—resulted in damage and fires that exceeded what the buildings were designed to withstand. While the WTC towers were designed to absorb the impact of a Boeing 707 (a common jet at the time of their design), the specifics of the 9/11 attacks, including the speed of the planes, the amount of fuel involved, and the location of the impacts, presented challenges well beyond the anticipated scenarios.
Not only did the jet fuel reach inconceivable temperatures, but their unique features rendered them even more vulnerable to collapse.
The Twin towers were among the first skyscrapers to use a tube frame structural system. This design consists of closely spaced perimeter columns to form a stiff exterior wall, resisting lateral loads such as wind pressure, and allowing the interior to be free of structural columns. The reliance on the perimeter columns for structural integrity meant that any significant damage to these columns could compromise the building's ability to stand. When the airplanes struck the towers, they destroyed several of these critical exterior columns, compromising the towers' structural integrity.
The floors of the towers were supported by lightweight, prefabricated trusses made of steel. These trusses supported lightweight concrete floors and were connected to the exterior walls and the core structure. The lightweight trusses were less robust against intense heat and fire. The fires ignited by the jet fuel from the airplanes caused the trusses to weaken and eventually collapse, leading to a pancake-style collapse of the floors. This process increased the load on the already damaged exterior columns, contributing further to the structural failure.
The steel structures of the WTC were coated with fireproofing material to protect them from the weakening effects of high temperatures. The impact of the airplanes dislodged significant portions of this fireproofing material, exposing the steel structure to intense heat from the burning jet fuel and office contents. Without adequate fireproofing, the steel weakened more rapidly under the fire's intense heat, contributing to the collapse.
The towers featured a central core housing elevators, utilities, and stairwells, surrounded by a large, open floor plan. The core's design meant that it was crucial for the building's structural integrity and for egress in an emergency. The impact and subsequent fires disrupted these core areas, cutting off escape routes for people above the impact zones and compromising critical structural components that contributed to the building's overall stability.
The combination of these architectural features with the unprecedented nature of the attacks—a high-speed collision with a large, fuel-laden commercial airliner—resulted in damage and fires that exceeded what the buildings were designed to withstand. While the WTC towers were designed to absorb the impact of a Boeing 707 (a common jet at the time of their design), the specifics of the 9/11 attacks, including the speed of the planes, the amount of fuel involved, and the location of the impacts, presented challenges well beyond the anticipated scenarios.
The claim that Hani Hanjour was too poor of a pilot to successfully strike the Pentagon is false. It stemmed from his poor English skills, a distinct matter.
Recall that he received formal flight training in the United States and obtained a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial pilot's certificate in 1999. This certification is not trivial; it requires passing rigorous written, oral, and practical flight tests that assess a candidate's knowledge and skill in operating aircraft. At the end of the day, the FAA's issuance of a commercial pilot's certificate to him is incontrovertible evidence of his meeting the minimum standards for piloting an aircraft. This certification directly contradicts claims of his absolute ineptitude as a pilot.
Concerning the flight maneuver into the Pentagon, aviation experts have weighed in on the feasibility of such an action by someone with Hanjour's background. For example, John Nance, an aviation analyst, explained in a PBS interview that while the maneuver was difficult, it was within the capabilities of someone who had a commercial pilot's license. He stated, "It's not as difficult as a lot of people thought... The hard part is not the flying or the navigating in those last few moments. It's getting to that point...". This statement underscores the notion that while challenging, the maneuver was not beyond the reach of someone who had been formally trained as a pilot.
Moreover, the technical aspects of flying a Boeing 757 should not be overlooked. Modern commercial airliners are equipped with advanced avionics and flight control systems designed to assist pilots in maintaining control of the aircraft. These systems can significantly mitigate the complexity of flying, even for someone who may not have extensive experience with that particular type of aircraft. The argument that Hanjour could not have executed the flight path because of a lack of skill overlooks the support provided by these technological aids.
A 2004 article notes:
The hijackers had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and "as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough."
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
An FBI report summarizes:
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
Perhaps most definitive:
A footnote to Chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Footnote 170). It recounts an FBI interview wherein an instructor confirmed that Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor actually believed Hanjour had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation and how he handled the approach and landing.
Recall that he received formal flight training in the United States and obtained a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial pilot's certificate in 1999. This certification is not trivial; it requires passing rigorous written, oral, and practical flight tests that assess a candidate's knowledge and skill in operating aircraft. At the end of the day, the FAA's issuance of a commercial pilot's certificate to him is incontrovertible evidence of his meeting the minimum standards for piloting an aircraft. This certification directly contradicts claims of his absolute ineptitude as a pilot.
Concerning the flight maneuver into the Pentagon, aviation experts have weighed in on the feasibility of such an action by someone with Hanjour's background. For example, John Nance, an aviation analyst, explained in a PBS interview that while the maneuver was difficult, it was within the capabilities of someone who had a commercial pilot's license. He stated, "It's not as difficult as a lot of people thought... The hard part is not the flying or the navigating in those last few moments. It's getting to that point...". This statement underscores the notion that while challenging, the maneuver was not beyond the reach of someone who had been formally trained as a pilot.
Moreover, the technical aspects of flying a Boeing 757 should not be overlooked. Modern commercial airliners are equipped with advanced avionics and flight control systems designed to assist pilots in maintaining control of the aircraft. These systems can significantly mitigate the complexity of flying, even for someone who may not have extensive experience with that particular type of aircraft. The argument that Hanjour could not have executed the flight path because of a lack of skill overlooks the support provided by these technological aids.
A 2004 article notes:
The hijackers had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and "as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough."
"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."
An FBI report summarizes:
"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
Perhaps most definitive:
A footnote to Chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report (Footnote 170). It recounts an FBI interview wherein an instructor confirmed that Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor actually believed Hanjour had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation and how he handled the approach and landing.
I’ve touched upon 7 World Trade Center (Building 7) further up in the thread, however, it's worth highlighting a particular photograph taken from Ground Zero to better illustrate the situation.
This image vividly captures the intense fire that engulfed the building. Considering the severity of the blaze, combined with the fact that the building's water sprinklers were rendered inoperative, and that its successful evacuation allowed emergency services to concentrate on the catastrophic collapses of the two primary towers, it is starkly clear that the use of explosives was completely unnecessary for the building's collapse.
Perhaps even more readily apparent is the fact that with the Twin Towers already destroyed, orchestrating the collapse of an additional building (one which was relatively less significant and unnecessary from a strategic standpoint) would have served no conceivable purpose.
Such maneuvers are how covert operations get blown wide open. Agencies like the CIA prioritize operational security and strategic advantage above all, and do not dare take such extreme risks for no plausible benefit.
Hell, even the local Keystone Cops know better than that!
This image vividly captures the intense fire that engulfed the building. Considering the severity of the blaze, combined with the fact that the building's water sprinklers were rendered inoperative, and that its successful evacuation allowed emergency services to concentrate on the catastrophic collapses of the two primary towers, it is starkly clear that the use of explosives was completely unnecessary for the building's collapse.
Perhaps even more readily apparent is the fact that with the Twin Towers already destroyed, orchestrating the collapse of an additional building (one which was relatively less significant and unnecessary from a strategic standpoint) would have served no conceivable purpose.
Such maneuvers are how covert operations get blown wide open. Agencies like the CIA prioritize operational security and strategic advantage above all, and do not dare take such extreme risks for no plausible benefit.
Hell, even the local Keystone Cops know better than that!
The Tim Osman theory (that Osama bin Laden was a CIA operative actually named Tim Osman) arises from a claim put forth by Michael James Riconosciuto, a mentally disturbed and deranged drug dealer and convict.
It arises specifically from a November 2001 article where he claimed to have provided FBI with a heads-up regarding 1998 Embassy Bombings and 9/11.
Riconosciuto emerged into the public eye primarily through his involvement in the Inslaw Affair, a complex legal case involving allegations against the United States Department of Justice. Riconosciuto claimed to have reprogrammed Inslaw's PROMIS software, a case-management program, with a secret "back-door" to allow clandestine tracking of individuals.
As to Osama, Riconosciuto asserted that he had met a person named "Tim Osman" (allegedly Osama bin Laden) during a meeting in Sherman Oaks, California in the late spring of 1986. Riconosciuto claimed that, along with Ted Gunderson, a former FBI official, he was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense Systems).
He asserted that the meeting was also attended by two representatives of the mujahideen. One was "Ralph Olberg," an American businessman procuring weapons for the Afghan rebels, and the other was a person he identified as "Tim Osman," a 28-year-old Saudi who he claimed was Osama bin Laden.
The outlandish tale has long ago been debunked and proven incontrovertibly false, but experienced a significant resurgence after the nonsensical drivel below was published as well:
It arises specifically from a November 2001 article where he claimed to have provided FBI with a heads-up regarding 1998 Embassy Bombings and 9/11.
Riconosciuto emerged into the public eye primarily through his involvement in the Inslaw Affair, a complex legal case involving allegations against the United States Department of Justice. Riconosciuto claimed to have reprogrammed Inslaw's PROMIS software, a case-management program, with a secret "back-door" to allow clandestine tracking of individuals.
As to Osama, Riconosciuto asserted that he had met a person named "Tim Osman" (allegedly Osama bin Laden) during a meeting in Sherman Oaks, California in the late spring of 1986. Riconosciuto claimed that, along with Ted Gunderson, a former FBI official, he was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense Systems).
He asserted that the meeting was also attended by two representatives of the mujahideen. One was "Ralph Olberg," an American businessman procuring weapons for the Afghan rebels, and the other was a person he identified as "Tim Osman," a 28-year-old Saudi who he claimed was Osama bin Laden.
The outlandish tale has long ago been debunked and proven incontrovertibly false, but experienced a significant resurgence after the nonsensical drivel below was published as well:
@SlaveOfAllah29_ @eastern_eye Whoops, wrong one. Meant to post this but still, that video helps too:
https://x.com/SlanderedSaint/status/1758974895835267540
Pancake collapse (floors below the debris seemingly crumbling ahead of it) is a matter of basic science, not proof of explosives!
https://twitter.com/slanderedsaint/status/1782441389436858781
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
