Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accep

[SAYIT]

Some of these kooks that worked in our government, is rather scary. Hopefully that is why he is ex, they saw him losing it and let him go- not that he was a kook while working for the govt.

You understand of course, there was a faction that attempted to get Major-General SMEDLEY BUTLER declared mentally incompetent
( in order to silence his anti-war logic & reason )

Did you know that in the old USSR, dissidents were routinely institutionalized as nut-cases in order to silence them?

Talk about deflection! So you are saying because the now defunct USSR did something decades ago that the US of A must also be doing it. That's rather typical of 9/11 CT "thinking."

I'm simply pointing out something that has been documented as policy in the old USSR, and therefore stands as a possibility for any administration anyplace to make use of the tactic in an attempt to silence the opposition.

Please be so kind as to supply actual rebuttal to the arguments at hand about the events of 9/11/2001, rather than leaning heavily upon allegations of insanity on the part of the loyal opposition.

Butler died in 1940, was never declared mentally incompetent, and just because the USSR did something doesn't mean the US of A does it.
Woo, you are scary dim (and very desperate).

 

[SAYIT]

Wow ... you really are impressively stupid. You wrote: "are you afraid to expose to this forum your motivation for supporting the suicidal hijackers story?"
Depotoo asked what you believe his motivation to be and you careened off the tracks. How can you be this stupid and operate a computer? Are you getting help?

Do you understand the difference between a request for YOU opinion and a counter-request for my speculation as to what YOUR opinion is?

WTF? You do now understand what Depotoo was asking for and how silly your confused posts were?

 

[n0spam4me]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

 

[SAYIT]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

 

[n0spam4me]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

• The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
• The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
• No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

Nice strawman. Assert an incorrect stat then rip it apart and seem to stupid people that you're right.

" The UA jet was clocked a 311mph, and the AA 757 at the Pentagon 345mph. "

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report, first paragraph page 10.
Page 27 of the pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

You have provided absolutely no evidence proving YOUR claims. You are claiming the Government is wrong but have not provided a single fact to counter their statements and refuse to answer simple questions.

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

Exactly what proof have you provided that what the Government said isn't true?

 

[Freewill]

Watch the video, it falls within itself:

So are you saying the picture I posted from Popular Mechanics is fake? The top portion didn't fall off to the side?

That's interesting because PopMech used that very picture in their "debunking" issue.

You guys who fail to believe your eyes are sad.

No, I am not saying your picture is fake, only incomplete. If you watch the video you see the same scene as in your picture. YOU made an assumption that the top fell to the side because of a picture. The video clearly shows it did not.

 

[n0spam4me]

I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

• The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
• The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
• No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

Nice strawman. Assert an incorrect stat then rip it apart and seem to stupid people that you're right.

" The UA jet was clocked a 311mph, and the AA 757 at the Pentagon 345mph. "

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report, first paragraph page 10.
Page 27 of the pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

and exactly what sort of accounting for the many tons of aircraft bits that would have had to be extracted from the PENTAGON? anybody can write words on paper, the difficult part is showing the documentation that an airliner had been recovered and accounted for. where is the documentation showing the recovery of the aircraft wreckage and exactly how much of said airliner was recovered & examined?

 

[n0spam4me]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

You have provided absolutely no evidence proving YOUR claims. You are claiming the Government is wrong but have not provided a single fact to counter their statements and refuse to answer simple questions.

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

Exactly what proof have you provided that what the Government said isn't true?

FACT, in the case of "ground zero" no flight data recorders were recovered for "FLT11" & "FLT175" the alleged airliners penetrated completely to the extent that there was no remnant of an aircraft to be seen in the hole in the side of the skyscraper. Where is the accounting for the airliner? in other airline disasters, the NTSB has all the bits laid out in a hanger and examined. Where is the accounting for any of the 4 aircraft allegedly hijacked and crashed on that day?

 

[Freewill]

I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

• The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
• The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
• No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

Nice strawman. Assert an incorrect stat then rip it apart and seem to stupid people that you're right.

" The UA jet was clocked a 311mph, and the AA 757 at the Pentagon 345mph. "

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report, first paragraph page 10.
Page 27 of the pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Interesting that a cruise missile has a speed of about 550 MPH.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

You have provided absolutely no evidence proving YOUR claims. You are claiming the Government is wrong but have not provided a single fact to counter their statements and refuse to answer simple questions.

"Do YOU have documentation of any scientific analysis of the video showing the alleged "FLT175" penetrating the wall, that shows the aircraft slowing down and indeed behaving like a real crash, rather than B movie special effects?"

In other words, you reject anything which does not conform with your version of 9/11 events (and I quote): "No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled." As of this moment you have persistently failed to prove anything but that you are a raging idiot. Sorry.

So rather than actually present evidence, you choose to complain,
and do so badly because its not a matter of me rejecting anything, its a matter of how the supporters of the official story have failed to prove that there were indeed hijacked airliners used as weapons.

Again you demand proof (which you reject, of course) but offer none in support of your claims ("No planes were hijacked on 9/11" and "the fires were staged and controlled").
Do you not see what a flaming loon you are? Do you not see why most rational peeps find you and the 9/11 CT Movement to be without a shred of credibility?

Exactly what proof has been presented that hijacked airliners were used as weapons? where is it?

Exactly what proof have you provided that what the Government said isn't true?

FACT, in the case of "ground zero" no flight data recorders were recovered for "FLT11" & "FLT175" the alleged airliners penetrated completely to the extent that there was no remnant of an aircraft to be seen in the hole in the side of the skyscraper. Where is the accounting for the airliner? in other airline disasters, the NTSB has all the bits laid out in a hanger and examined. Where is the accounting for any of the 4 aircraft allegedly hijacked and crashed on that day?

And still no facts presented. Where did the 4 aircraft go? Where are the passengers and crew? Exactly how does one recover debris from a disintegrated aircraft? Or from tens of tons of debris?

 

[n0spam4me]

And still no facts presented. Where did the 4 aircraft go? Where are the passengers and crew? Exactly how does one recover debris from a disintegrated aircraft? Or from tens of tons of debris?

exactly what proof do you have that "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93" existed at all? and as for accounting for the aircraft, physical matter isn't ever destroyed, it can be reduced to small bits, however it takes a LOT of energy to pulverized completely an entire Boeing 757. The question remains, exactly how much of any one of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners was accounted for?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And still no facts presented. Where did the 4 aircraft go? Where are the passengers and crew? Exactly how does one recover debris from a disintegrated aircraft? Or from tens of tons of debris?

exactly what proof do you have that "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93" existed at all? and as for accounting for the aircraft, physical matter isn't ever destroyed, it can be reduced to small bits, however it takes a LOT of energy to pulverized completely an entire Boeing 757. The question remains, exactly how much of any one of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners was accounted for?

I will believe the Government up until YOU provide facts disputing their claims. You have none, thanks for admitting it.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

• The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
• The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
• No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

This is videoproof of the first plane hitting the WTC.

Uploaded on May 6, 2007
This 9/11 video clip is one of only two known videos of the first plane impact on 9/11. Taken from north of the World Trade Center Complex. It was a rather bizarre coincidence, but never the less, far fewer witnessed the first plane impact the North Tower (WTC1).

The other first plane impact video, taken by "Pavel Hlava" is currently at :

http://media.putfile.com/Pavel-Hlava-...

---

For the High Quality video, plesae obtain the "9/11" documentary by the Naudet brothers. You can find it on Ebay and Amazon...

http://www.amazon.com/11-Filmmakers-C&tag=ff0d01-20...

Investigate 9/11, find out more at...

911Blogger.com Paying Attention to 9 11 Related News


You guys who fail to believe your eyes are sad.

Ah yes, the Naudet brothers - graduates of the prestigious and very competitive Tisch School of the Arts. What do they with their schooling and notoriety from being able to document the events of 9/11? They go on to make 3 TV movies over the next 13 years - one of which was basically a 10 year anniversary remix of their original 9/11 doc.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

These sites know they can feed on the weak, and profit from it, and sit at home all day, getting paid for it, making up outlandish conspiracies. Sad thing is, so many fall for it.

May I ask, ( and truly I am interested in getting an answer )
what is it that convinces you that 19 suicidal fanatics hijacked
airliners and used said airliners as weapons?

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11, November 2007



Published on May 18, 2014

On 29th November 2007, al Jazeera aired a portion of a tape where bin Laden said he was responsible for 9/11, and the Afghans knew nothing about it.

Bin Laden denies responsibility


FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
FBI says it has 8220 No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9 11 8221

FBI Poster - no mention of 9/11
FBI mdash USAMA BIN LADEN

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

• The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
• The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
• No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

Nice strawman. Assert an incorrect stat then rip it apart and seem to stupid people that you're right.

" The UA jet was clocked a 311mph, and the AA 757 at the Pentagon 345mph. "

"At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour."

Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report, first paragraph page 10.
Page 27 of the pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

and exactly what sort of accounting for the many tons of aircraft bits that would have had to be extracted from the PENTAGON? anybody can write words on paper, the difficult part is showing the documentation that an airliner had been recovered and accounted for. where is the documentation showing the recovery of the aircraft wreckage and exactly how much of said airliner was recovered & examined?

All I'm doing is correcting "Delta4Embassy" on the speed of AA77 given in the "official" account.

 

[n0spam4me]

And still no facts presented. Where did the 4 aircraft go? Where are the passengers and crew? Exactly how does one recover debris from a disintegrated aircraft? Or from tens of tons of debris?

exactly what proof do you have that "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93" existed at all? and as for accounting for the aircraft, physical matter isn't ever destroyed, it can be reduced to small bits, however it takes a LOT of energy to pulverized completely an entire Boeing 757. The question remains, exactly how much of any one of the 4 alleged hijacked airliners was accounted for?

I will believe the Government up until YOU provide facts disputing their claims. You have none, thanks for admitting it.

and so the fact of the video of the alleged "FLT175" looking more like B movie special effects than anything else, + the whole PENTAGON scene where the alleged airliner hit happened at such an angle that the starboard side wing tip would contact the Pentagon wall at about the same time as the nose of the alleged airliner and still people somehow buy that total fraud about the entire airliner entering the building?
This whole fiasco was an exercise in making 4 airliners disappear so as to hide the fact that the airliners never existed in the first place.

The mainstream media was the first to assert that airliners were used as weapons, however they have produced ZERO proof of that assertion.

 

[depotoo]

Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html

These sites know they can feed on the weak, and profit from it, and sit at home all day, getting paid for it, making up outlandish conspiracies. Sad thing is, so many fall for it.

May I ask, ( and truly I am interested in getting an answer )
what is it that convinces you that 19 suicidal fanatics hijacked
airliners and used said airliners as weapons?

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11, November 2007



Published on May 18, 2014

On 29th November 2007, al Jazeera aired a portion of a tape where bin Laden said he was responsible for 9/11, and the Afghans knew nothing about it.

Bin Laden denies responsibility


FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
FBI says it has 8220 No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9 11 8221

FBI Poster - no mention of 9/11
FBI mdash USAMA BIN LADEN

 

[n0spam4me]

Bin Laden Takes Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks in New Tape
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html

These sites know they can feed on the weak, and profit from it, and sit at home all day, getting paid for it, making up outlandish conspiracies. Sad thing is, so many fall for it.

May I ask, ( and truly I am interested in getting an answer )
what is it that convinces you that 19 suicidal fanatics hijacked
airliners and used said airliners as weapons?

Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11, November 2007



Published on May 18, 2014

On 29th November 2007, al Jazeera aired a portion of a tape where bin Laden said he was responsible for 9/11, and the Afghans knew nothing about it.

Bin Laden denies responsibility


FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
FBI says it has 8220 No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9 11 8221

FBI Poster - no mention of 9/11
FBI mdash USAMA BIN LADEN

OK, so far so groovie ...... There are multiple videos that allege to be Ben Laden claiming one thing or another and since it is obvious from the analysis of the various videos that there is more than one actor playing Ben Laden, I consider the whole lot to be completely useless.
Bottom line here, hard evidence trumps politics all day every day.