Osama bin Laden: Terrorist Mastermind or CIA Asset? (SPOILER ALERT TERRORIST MASTERMIND)

Ah, so we've come to Osama bin Laden.  OBL as he will normally be referred to as on here, is widely known as the leader of the terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda, who, as you may very well know, is accused (and mostly convicted of) planning and executing the September 11th Terrorist Attacks.  However, truthers believe there is something else at the core of OBL.  That he isn't actually a terrorist mastermind, but actually an asset of the Central Intelligence Agency.

HEY SOVIETS, WE KINDA DON'T WANT YOU HERE

The story of Osama bin Laden as we know him starts with the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.  The general narrative is that the Aghan mujaheddin fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and helped bleed them of resources and money and helped contribute to it's collapse during the Reagan years.

But truthers think that ol' Ronnie funneled money to Osama bin Laden himself to help repell the Soviet invasion.  They think his name isn't Osama bin Laden at all, but some shit like Tim Osmond.  So is he one of these people?

Me thinks not even this group would be diabolical enough to do 9/11.

Anyways, truthers think that the Reagan administration funneled money and weapons to Osama bin Laden and his group of merry men to help battle the Soviets.  But is this true?  Eh, not exactly.

You see, the funding to help Afghanistan against the Soviets went through one country: Pakistan.  And they had no dealings with the Arab mujaheddin (AKA outsiders of Afghanistan).  The only people they gave funding to were the Afghans.

First of all, why would the United States feel compelled to give resources to outsiders?  There were ample Afghans willing to fight against the Soviet invasion.  About 250,000 is the common number referenced.

Another reason why the United States would have nothing to do with funding or training OBL and his group of Arabs: remember Israel?  You know, that country that's essentially the only ally America has in the Middle East?  They're kind've enemies with the Arab world.  The United States wouldn't put Israel's livelihood in danger for the sake of putting out of its misery an already crumbling Soviet Union.

Peter Bergen of CNN had this to say on the OBL/USA connection:

"The story about bin Laden and the CIA--that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden--is simply a folk myth.  There's no evidence of this.  In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on.  They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s.  And they wouldn't have needed to.  Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.  The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

Emphasis mine.  Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

Bergen is known as doing the first interview with OBL in 1997, and this is also where OBL publically declared jihad (holy war) on the United States.

You can also read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, which documents OBL from the 1980s through 9/11, with full citations and sources.  Truthers won't like the contents of the book, but it is what it is.

THAT WAS HIM, BUT IT REALLY WASN'T HIM

The bluntly titled "confession tape" of OBL shows what appears to be him admitting to responsibility of the 9/11 attacks.  Here is the video:

Truthers make the claim that this is, in fact, not OBL at all, but a poor excuse of a stunt double/actor.

First of all, they think that OBL is a CIA asset.  So why, exactly, wouldn't they just use him in the actual tape?  if they are all buddy buddy working toward the same goal, it would seem to me that the real OBL would be on the tape regardless.  

Anyways, truthers often cite this still as proof it isn't OBL:

Never mind the fact that the video quality here is utter shit.  They cite that he looks too chubby.  His beard doesn't match, etc.

Here is another still from the same video:

All of a sudden he isn't looking so chubby and more Osama bin Laden like, yes?

Here is another:

Again, looks pretty similar to OBl, right?  All from the same video that the still truthers use came from.  Imagine that.

BUT WAIT! OBL IS WEARING A RING IN THIS VIDEO!  MUSLIMS DON'T WEAR SUCH THINGS!

Well, muh clearer footage of bin Laden also show him wearing rings.  Proof? Alright:

Other prominent Muslims wearing rings:

If you don't know who the above people are, then you really shouldn't be commenting on Muslim topics anyways.

So, it is shown that truthers are either really gullible to take one still from a video that they probably never actually watched before as fact, or they are willingly lying to people's faces about the contents of the video.  Neither would surprise me.

And it's not like this is the only time that OBL has confessed to the 9/11 attacks, either.  Here he is in October 2001 to al-Jazeera:

Here is who is believed to be Osama bin Laden (ccertainly sounds like him) praising and naming the 9/11 hijackers, which also helps debunk the whole "hijackers are still alive" theory and the "no Arab names were on any of the flight manifests" theory:

Certainly looks like Osama bin Laden hates America, right?  Absolutely doesn't sound like someone that is on the CIA's payroll.  He approves of the attacks, confesses to responsibility to the attacks, names the hijackers, etc.

American Airlines Flight 11 and the North Tower (1WTC)

September 11, 2001 was just like any other fall day in New York City.  People were driving into the city or riding the subway in for work, chatting with co-workers and friends, and just carrying on.  Then, at 8:46am, hijacker pilot Muhammed Atta would change that, along with history on board American Airlines flight 11.  Or did he?

Truther would like to convince you of otherwise.  Many of whom believe that AA11 did not hit the towers at all.  They believe this footage from the Naudet brothers documentary simply called "9/11" was fake:

Yes, there are several within the 9/11 Truth Movement that believe that no planes hit the World Trade Center towers that day, and that it was all an elaborate hoax and TV fakery.  I for one, think they give the government WAY too much credit here.  They may have an argument with AA11, if it was the only crash that day, as this and maybe one or two other videos caught the crash happen.  However, several TV cameras and personal hand helds caught United Airlines Flight 175 crash into the South Tower, in what is possibly the most recorded single event in history.  We'll talk about UA175 and the South Tower in another post.

PLANE WRECKAGE AND DAMAGE TO THE NORTH TOWER

Truthers will often make the false claim that there was no plane wreckage recovered at the World Trade Center site.  Though it is true that much of the remains of the planes perished in the ensuing fires, since the majority of them were made of aluminum, there were still pieces of fuselage, engine parts and passenger items recovered.

One such item was a passport from the hijackers.  Truthers find this to be ridiculous, and feel that the government is treating us like idiots to think a paper passport would survive a plane crash, fires, collapse (if it even stayed in the towers immediately following the crash, that is).

However, that isn;t the only artifact that survived the crash of Flight 11.  Here is passenger Waleed Iskandar's bank card:

This was returned to Waleed's parents a year after the attacks. 

Noted truther, that for some reason people take the word of, because he is a theologian by trade, David Ray Griffin makes another false claim about the hijacker passport, stating that it was found in the rubble in cleanup, so it must've survived the crash and fires, and since he deems that impossible, that it must've been planted.  It was actually found before the tower collapsed, recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin.  

Here is a picture of the passport, from AA11 hijacker Satam Al-Suqami:

No worst for the wear, right?  Well, being as the explosion from the crash could've pushed it out, just as it did with a whole lot of other paper materials from inside the towers, sure.  Passports also have a thin plastic film on the one page that matters, which is the one with the picture and personal information on it.

The cover of the passport looks a little bit more beat up, but still solid condition:

Here is a picture that shows more paper that escaped the tower from the crash, seemingly untouched.  Also, some people are examining an airplane seat that also escaped the tower after the crash:

But how can this be?  It should be impossible for something like an aircraft see and paper to escape the towers after the crash and ensuing explosion/fires!

Here is a piece of AA11's fuselage:

Part of a landing gear and wheel:

An inflatable life vest that survived the crash and explosion to be found outside of the tower on the rooftop of another building:

So there is ample evidence of a plane in fact, hitting WTC1.  But were the men who did it really there?

THEM HIJACKERS ARE ALL IN YOUR HEAD, MAN

Another common claim, which originated again from David Ray Griffin, is that there were no Arab names on any of the flight manifests of the allegedly hijacked flights.  He makes the conclusion that either this was a set up to blame al-Qaeda automatically, or those flights never existed.

This claim often irks me the most.  If these flights never existed, then where did the passengers go?  I mean, the most prominent passenger on board Flight 11 was David Angell, creator of the TV shows Frasier, Cheers and Wings.  Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, was supposed to be on that flight but missed it per a scheduling error by his assistant. Mark Wahlberg was also supposed to be on that flight but elected to go with friends to Toronto instead for a film festival.  What, did they all just buy imaginary plane tickets?

Anyways, here is a copy of the flight manifest that shows hijackers Muhammed Atta, Satam Al Saquami, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, and Abdulaziz al-Omari, along with David Agnell and his wife Lynn:

So his claim is debunked already.  And just for reference, here are the manifests for Flights 77, 175, and 93:

All of the hijackers are on those manifests.  All of them.

And if you want more proof that specifically, Atta was at the controls of Flight 11, here he is caught on tape:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-1.ogg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Mohamed_Atta_to_ATC-2.ogg

And here he is making his way through airport security:

NORTH TOWER DAMAGE

Now for the meat and potatoes of this thing.  The no-planers claim that no planes actually hit anywhere on 9/11.  As you will see here, and as you saw in the Pentagon post, the impacts all made holes that were very much plane shaped.  And in regards to the towers, you can see that the holes are plane shaped and also bending inwards on the edges of the holes, meaning something from the outside of the tower forced its way in and made the hole while coming to rest (mostly) inside the building:

Here you can better so how the hole goes inward, and can even see that the win tips were not strong enough to sever the columns, but managed to make an indentation:

So that rules out the theory of using explosives to form the hole, as it would then be an outward shape on the edges, and not inward.  Then, there are the special kind of crazies that think it was laser beams from outer space.

No, I'm not kidding.  They believe that the Reagan Star Wars program was seen to fruition (it wasn't) and ultimately used on thee twin towers to cause collapse.  Mmhmm.  Their so called proof that this occurred?  They believe that the lasers caused all the steel to turn to dust upon collapse.

Just look at all this dustified steel:

Those little black specs in the middleish bottom of the picture?  Those are people.  First responders to help clean up the chaos after the buildings collapsed, and to hopefully find survivors.

Speaking of survivors, they were found in the rubble.  Which also contradicts the death laser theory, as well as another just as crazy one that a mini-nuke was used at the towers.

Here's some more of that dustified steel:

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAAAAAAMMMZZZ

Another common truther fallacy turned internet meme.  Not because that statement is false, it is true that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.  The part they get wrong is thinking the official account, and debunkers, say that steel melted on September 11th.  It did not.

While a temperature of 1,370 degrees Celsius is needed to melt steel, only a temperature of 538 degrees Celsius is needed to make the steel begin to soften.  So less than half the heat needed to melt it will cause it to start losing its strength.  To be specific, according to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, structural steel loses half of its strength at 593 degrees Celsius.

NIST notes that parts of the first in the towers hit as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius which would cause the steel in that are to lose more than 90% of its strength.  You can clearly see in photographs of the buildings an inward bowing on the outer structure, which means the steel trusses that helped keep the structural integrity of the buildings by connecting itself to both the perimeter columns and the steel inner core beams.

You can see here in the gif showing perfectly this bowing which ultimately led to complete structural failure:

It appears at this very moment that the sagging trusses became too great to bear on both the perimeter columns and the core, and thus the collapse begins.

Here is another photo clearly showing the inward bowing:

Steel didn't need to melt to cause the collapse of the towers.  

AND I'M FREE, FREE FALLING

Lastly I wanted to address the claim that both towers fell at free fall speeds, clearly showing it had to be a controlled demolition.  I will address the North Tower here, and the South Tower in another post.

Here is a video of the collapse of the North Tower:

The collapse begins at around 0:29 in the video.  The collapse, some would say, ends at around 0:45 making the collapse last 16 seconds.  That alone dispells the theory of free fall collapse because for that to be true it'd have to all come down in less than 10 seconds.  But in my humble opinion, it doesn't end at 0:45.  See that bit of structure still standing after the rest of the building fell?  That is either part of the outer perimeter steel columns or part of the inner steel core.  If this were a controlled demolition, those portions would have gone down with the rest of the building.  So in my opinion, the collapse ends at around 1:02, which would time it at 33 seconds.

Still need more proof it didn't fall that fast? Alright.

Look at this:

Notice how debris that is falling independently from the building is at least 20-30 stories ahead of the collapse itself.  Those portions are falling with zero resistance.  The North Tower, however, is showing plenty of resistance to the collapse.  You can also see at the top right portions of the structure just now starting to fall, so now I'd put that estimation of how far the independently falling debris is at over 40 stories.  This building came down at a much slower rate than free fall speeds.