note that Yabby has neither substantiated his libellous accusation against me nor withdrawn it.

---

If Yabby had read and comprehended what was written in this forum, he would know that the supposed "Confession video" by Osama bin Laden was almost certainly a fake. If Yabby examined the face of "Osama bin Laden" as it appeared in the supposed confession tape at http://www.911lies.org/fake_bin_laden.html he surely could not fail to notice the striking differences between the actual Osama bin Laden and the Osama bin Laden on the tape.

Perhaps, he would then understand why even the FBI acknowledges that it does not have enough evidence to charge Osama bin Laden with the crime of orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attack, and that is why that crime is not listed at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

And if Yabby had any intellectual sophistication whatsoever within him he would understand that there is a difference between on the one hand pointing out that no evidence has been produced that links Osama bin Laden with the crime of September 11 and on the other approving of Osama bin Laden.

But, then again, being able to pretend to be a stupid ignoramus with no capacity to understand the words staring you in your face serves a useful purpose on forums like this.

It would serve to make the making of false and libellous accusations against others less reprehensible than it in fact is.

Ah, but what our Daggett clearly overlooks, is the fact that the
photo on his conspiracy website could well in fact be a fake,
and not from the alleged video at all! The one that I saw
on tv certainly was Bin Laden and looks nothing like the
picture shown.

Next we have had Bin Laden confess on Al Jazeera, we have
had Zawahiri admit the role of Al Queda, etc. etc.

Fact is that Daggett doesent have a clue as to what evidence
the FBI do or don't have against Bin Laden, for he has never
seen their files and mountains of evidence. All the rest is
pure speculation.

It is common practise in criminal cases of complexity, where
a bundle of crimes have been committed, to simply focus on
a few of them. Perhaps the FBI have not even decided yet,
what crimes he would be charged with, should he ever be
caught. It really does not matter, he could be hauled
in for a traffic offense. The problem is catching him if
he is still alive, not what he will be prosectuted with,
for there is clearly a mountain of evidence. So that little
conspiracy theory, based on an FBI webpage, goes completely
out the window.

http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

There you go Daggett, given that you have time to waste on
this stuff, that website should keep you busy for days.

Yabby wrote, "... So that little conspiracy theory, based on an FBI webpage, goes completely out the window."

Really, Yabby?

Because Yabby, it would seem, happens to know better the reason that the 9/11 attacks are not included on the 'wanted' poster than Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, who, on 5 June 2006 sated:

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no /hard evidence/ connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html)

Perhaps Yabby imagines that the FBI has not yet seen 'Osama bin Laden's' 'confession'.

Perhaps Yabby should contact the FBI and tell them that he can personally vouch for the authenticity of 'Osama bin Laden's' taped 'confession'. I am sure that they would listen and in no time at all the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be listed on Osama bin Laden's 'wanted' poster at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

---

Anyway, Yabby, the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement does not rest solely on that fact alone. There are mountains of other evidence which implicate the White House in the 9/11 attacks.

Daggett, last time I remember, the US had a 50$ million bounty
on bin Laden's head. Do you really think that they do that
without evidence? This case involves international law,
so it becomes a bit more tricky when it comes to how to
prosecute somebody, under which exact law, if somebody is
not even in the US.

The last thing that the FBI or CIA are going to do is to
tell the public what exactly they know or don't know. Did
they say that those videos on Al Jazeera were all frauds?

Nope.

Note your FBI source is the man dealing with "publicity".
In other words, tell the public as little as possible,
unless they really need to know. We had case here in
Perth of a serial murderer, where the police witheld
video information from the public for many years, for their
own good reasons, which they never explained.

Once again, the problem with bin Laden is not what appears
on a website, but catching him, if indeed he is still alive,
which is doubtfull.

But believe whatever you will, waste your time. When
I read that it was likely a Cessna that flew into the
Pentagon, I can only chuckle and head off to debate more
interesting topics.

Some people simply can't help their own bad judgement.

Dagget,

This Bin Laden nonsense is just more of the same.

Whether the FBI have the evidence to charge bin laden or not doesn't have ANY bearing on whether the attacks were gov't organised. Its not even remotely evidence for your case.

Are you seriously suggesting that the FBI believes someone else carried out the attack, but is sitting on their hands?

If the fbi are in on the conspiracy then their is no reason for them not to accept bin ladens confession videos (note plural).

If they are not, why would they not leak their suspicions (as every other gov't bureaucracy does?

In simple terms how does the FBI's lack of evidence against Bin Liner prove anything about the gov't complicity in the attacks?

By the way I didn't realise you now had evidence linking the white house to the attacks. Or are you just ad libbing again?

Regarding the "mountain of evidence" supposedly collected by the 9/11 truth movement, the debunking sites thoroughly explain why the evidence is either entirely consistent with the official explanation of the events, or just plain misguided (eg. the many truther claims no longer pursued - a missile hit the pentagon, a cargo jet hit the world trade centre) etc

Yabby wrote, "... last time I remember, the US had a 50$ million bounty on bin Laden's head. Do you really think that they do that
without evidence?"

How would I know?

All I know is that they haven't produced any evidence, which seems to me to be a gaping hole in the case of the US Government, when we consider that Osama bin Laden's presumed guilt was the legal basis for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks had been produced.

The patsies who hijacked the 4 aircraft were clearly motivated by jihadist beliefs similar to those (I believe were) espoused by Osama bin Laden. So it would not have been a great surprise to me if it had turned out that Osama bin Laden had put them up to it, or if not Osama bin Laden, then someone very similar.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that no evidence implicating Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks has been produced, and the video taped confessions are clearly fakes (or do you still insist that http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=lI8q5EjpIng is for real?)

As I keep saying, if you think this debate is a waste of time, then you are not obligated to participate in it. The way I see it, half-baked contributions such as your last only serve to help waste more of everyone's time.