Titanium Cat

The evidence that I have presented has nothing to do with Bin Ladin's involvement in 9/11. The evidence that I present severly contradicts various claims that you make in your attempt to disprove the official story and present your own alternate versions of what happened.

Except there are logical reasons why they would choose not to do everything possible to capture Bin Laden and bring him to justice even if they had proof he was involved. We have already discussed these, they are politically motivated like wanting to continue scaring people into accepting the “war on terra” as long as Bin Laden is out there.

This is quite incorrect, circumstantial evidence is real, it’s just not direct evidence of guilt, it’s evidence which only infers guilt.

Virtually every piece of evidence given by truthers is circumstantial evidence, usually extremely weak circumstantial evidence at that. Eg. Bush used 9/11 to sell (scare) the American public into supporting the Iraq war. This is a true statement but it is definitely not direct proof of either MIHOP or LIHOP. But one could infer that he planned 9/11 so as to take advantage of it politically. However it is very weak circumstantial evidence because he is perfectly capable of exploiting 9/11 for political purposes without LIHOP or MIHOP being true.

Titanium Cat

You are the ones making a positive claim, that the Bush administration was involved either passively (LIHOP) or actively (MIHOP) in 9/11. You have not only attempted to disprove the “official story” as to what the events were, but also repeatedly stated alternate scenarios which of course support MIHOP. It is up to you to provide the evidence to support those assertions.

As to the proof of Bin Laden’s involvement, it has already been stated that there are valid reasons as to why such evidence wouldn’t be revealed at least until a formal indictment was issued. Much of it is based on intelligence data which most people, especially low end message board dwelling Bushbots like me, don’t have access to. Revealing sensitive intelligence data could put lives at risk and threaten future operations.

The UK government is very convinced that Bin Laden is guilty, sixty seven UK citizens were killed in the 9/11 attacks. They too make it clear that much of the intelligence data that supports Bin Laden’s guilt could not be used as evidence in a court of law due to rules of admissibility and to protect the safety of sources. This would make the legal case against Bin Ladin more difficult to prosecute.

However they did release a 74 point memo listing the reasons as to why they believe that Bin Ladin was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks.

September 11 attacks - Evidence document presented by the British Government

Now perhaps you might explain why you (and truthers in general) often resort to making irrelevant claims and presenting false information in your quest to disprove the official story?

Duvidoo

But bin Laden was the lynchpin.
He was reported to be in Afghanistan
so the coalition went there.
Instead of running bin Laden to earth
they went to Iraq for a spot of
regime changing. So if bin Laden
isn't important why do they
keep him in the closet as a bogeyman?
Oh so Orwellian.

Titanium Cat

Did you miss this part of my post?

"Except there are logical reasons why they would choose not to do everything possible to capture Bin Laden and bring him to justice even if they had proof he was involved. We have already discussed these, they are politically motivated like wanting to continue scaring people into accepting the “war on terra” as long as Bin Laden is out there."

Duvidoo

It really is a shame that nobody called Bush on this on the run up to the 2004 election. Seems John Kerry was asleep at the switch.

Titanium Cat

You changing the subject again, what a shocker.

Duvidoo

I didn't notice a change ... I was referring to his having been called on using Osama as a bogeyman for political gain. Kerry could have asked him how the hunt for Osama was going or some such thing to rattle Bush's cage.

Titanium Cat

You mean like during the debates when Kerry said that it was a mistake for Bush to take the focus off of hunting Bin Ladin? Or when Kerry ridiculed Bush by saying the following:

"Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden? " He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.""

That sort of such thing?

Ptech

TC

You cannot prove one single element of the official story. I challenge you to prove any one you choose.

Titanium Cat

So then I assume you think the planes that hit the WTC towers were holograms?