I found this webpage that has a very interesting animated photo. It shows an old picture of bin laden repeatedly appear and dissolve over a newer one, indicating the facial differences are significant. It suggests deception.
What do you think? If you have any good resources confirming or debunking this, please post them.
I don't have any resources that confirm it, but it only makes sense to believe he didn't plan the attacks of 9/11. Remember, in 2002 Bush said he didn't care about where Bin Laden was and that it wasn't "his priority". In addition to that, he would be the first President to actually defend americans because every single (at least since Polk) wartime president before him got Americans into war by lying. I don't see why Bush would be any different.
Finally, some of the quotes atrributed to Bin Laden don't match the rest attributed to him. There are both violent and peaceful quotes that are attributed to him.
I don't know who exactly planned 9/11, but whoever it was, it wasn't Bin Laden.
CIA has admitted to faking bin Laden videos in order to "discredit" him. The last time he was heard from in a legitimate sense was October 2001. The subsequent videos are not actually him. They are actors who work in the CIA.
One of the more famous plots was the CIAs attempt to paint Saddam and bin Laden as gay. Talk about discrediting them.
Finally, some of the quotes atrributed to Bin Laden don't match the rest attributed to him. There are both violent and peaceful quotes that are attributed to him. I don't know who exactly planned 9/11, but whoever it was, it wasn't Bin Laden.
He denied involvement right afterwards.
Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US
That doesn't exactly fit the modus, now does it?
The FBI claims to have "stopped" 14 terror attacks since 9/11. In every case, the plot was actually the FBI's own idea and its "stopping" of the plot was simply the termination of its sting operation and arrest of the target of the sting.
This is the MO of the intelligence agencies. They did it to Randy Weaver and then later murdered his wife in cold blood - long before 9/11. Al-Qaeda is almost entirely a creation of the fevered imagination of CIA. Ever heard of the game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon"? We're all at most 6 degrees from being identified as an Al-Qaeda operative.
I have not studied the videos but I have looked at stills side-by-side and the man in the videos from December 2001 simply does not look like all the prior videos of bin Laden. His first released message on Sep. 16, 2001 simply denied all involvement in the attacks - though he praised whoever did carry them out. Why bother to carry out the attacks, then deny it? Isn't the whole purpose supposed to be to get attention? And if he was "scared", then what changed between then and Dec. 2001 when he began releasing a flurry of messages reversing himself and claiming responsibility for the attacks?
Osama bin Laden was clearly an Emmanuel Goldstein persona. All the evidence suggests he died in or before Dec. 2001. What is concerning to me is the fact that they "killed" ObL this past year. Why is he no longer useful? What are they planning now to replace that charade?
Clayton -
Why is he no longer useful?
I don't know if one could graph this sort of thing precisely, but at some stage the embarrassment of having failed to catch the boogeyman thusfar must come to outweigh the propaganda benefit of having him lurking somewhere out there in the shadows.
What are they planning now to replace that charade?
Kony perhaps? Or some other African tin-pot warlord. Aside from the threat of a nuclear Iran, that is.
Maybe we'll find out at the Olympics this year.