Faked Bin Laden Tapes?

[A1Kaid]

Keys,

Since you have done a fair amount of conspiracy theory busting on the 911 issue, ar the arguments made in the article correct?

Was the video claiming responsibility a fake?

Keys is no authority on truth or 9/11, I have read his misguided and foolish posts before on this matter, and he knows nothing. So it doesn't matter what he thinks.

I am prepared to debate Keys, S-2, Ratus Ratus, and even the lights of you Agnostic on this matter.

Top Bin Laden Expert: The Tapes are Fakes

Kevin Barrett

As a PhD in Islamic and Arabic Studies, I hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror itself is as phony as the latest “Bin Laden tape.” (Guardian 04)

It’s tough to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered - and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is like dropping my bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with has poured millions into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my PhD in 2005, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose to the ground, parrot the party line, and I’ll be on the fast track to tenure.

The trouble is, it’s all based on a big lie. Take the recent “Bin Laden tape,” - please! That voice was no more Bin Laden than it was my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown Bin Laden tape, a real one from the early 90’s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy’s flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape certainly wasn’t him.

The top American Bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies Department, has just finished a book of translations of Bin Laden’s speeches. He says the recent tape is a fake and that Bin Laden has been dead for years. (ABC 2004).


Ersatz Bin Laden tapes “verified” by the CIA are nothing new. Every Bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real Bin Laden were the following words recorded by Pakistani journalists: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation . . . I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks on the United States . . . I had no knowledge of these attacks. . .” (Wiki 2004)

Then, on December 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the “outrageous conspiracy theories” that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the “Bin Laden Speaks from the Grave” tapes appeared. The video’s sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of Bin Laden’s voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy was clearly not Bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier and his facial features were obviously different. (911Res 2005)

The “Fatty Bin Laden tape” was widely ridiculed and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven’t figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of Bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions. Why was the US government waving this blatantly fake “confession” video in our faces?

Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by Fatty Bin Laden, the next Ousama-from-beyond-the-grave message had no images: It was an audio tape delivered to al-Jazeera in the fall of 2002. The CIA verified it as “authentic,” but ended up with egg on its face when the world’s leading voice identification experts at IDIAP in Switzerland reported that “the message was recorded by an impostor.” (Guardian 2002)

Every Bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost - and the American (mainstream) media go along with the fraud. [I actually made the same point previously] Remember the bogus Bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 elections? If you didn’t figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. (CNN ) But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the Emperor was clothed.

And the fraud continues. Last week’s [need a date if you don’t want this article to age prematurely] Bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America’s top Bin Laden expert, yet the US media gamely held its tattered fig leaf over the Emperor’s loins. Professor Lawrence believes that the tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: To prepare public opinion for another false-flag 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a US-Israel nuclear attack on Iran. (AC 2005)

As our top Bin Laden expert Professor Lawrence says, the real Bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since 2001. The fake messages have been fabricated by al-CIA-duh to support the Bush regime and its phony “war on terror.” It is time for Americans to rise up against the masters of synthetic terror who have been looting the US taxpayer, torching the Constitution, demolishing the economy, and threatening a nuclear Armageddon.

About the author

Dr Barrett holds a PhD in Arabic, with a focus on Islamic studies, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is cofounder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: Welcome to the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth

References

(Guardian 04) The Making of the Terror Myth. The Guardian, Oct 10 2004.

The making of the terror myth | Media | The Guardian

(ABC 04) A. Rupinta. Duke Professor Sceptical of Bin Laden Tape. ABC News, Jan. 19, 2006.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?%20section=local=3828678

(Wiki 2004) Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Wikipedia, 2004.

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(911Res 2005) “Fatty” bin Laden. 911 Research. 2005.
9-11 Research: "Fatty" bin Laden

(Guardian 2002) B. Whittaker. Swiss Scientists 95% Sure that Bin Laden Recording Was a Fake. The Guardian, Jan 30, 2002.

Swiss scientists 95% sure that Bin Laden recording was fake | World news | The Guardian

(CNN 2004) Larry King Live. Bin Laden Releases New Videotape. CNN. Oct 24, 2004.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0[url=http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734]Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran- by Justin Raimondo410/29/lkl.01.html[/URL]

Referred to in WRH. [hot link “WRH” to following URL:]

Cronkite: Osama bin Laden c/o Karl Rove?

(AC 2005) Deep Background. American Conservative. Aug. 1, 2005.

The American Conservative -- Deep Background

discussed in Antiwar.com [hot link to “Antiwar.com” to following URL.]

Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran- by Justin Raimondo


Source:http://physics911.net/kevinbarrett

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Keys is no authority on truth or 9/11, I have read his misguided and foolish posts before on this matter, and he knows nothing. So it doesn't matter what he thinks.

I am prepared to debate Keys, S-2, Ratus Ratus, and even the lights of you Agnostic on this matter.

A1Kaid,

I am not debating you on this because I have never bothered to really research either side, and I will admit that I have always believed that the confession tape was real and an incriminating confession by OBL.

I asked for Key's input since he has posted on the issue, your views about his posts aside. Anyone else is welcome as well. I will stick to my original views for now.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I would just like to offer an American perspective on the proposition of bin Laden tapes being faked by the CIA. I cannot believe that the CIA could get away with it. I know you all believe that the CIA is so incredibly competent and can cause untold world events to transpire without leaving any clear fingerprints. BUT I don't believe that they are that competent. I believe that IF they were faking bin Laden tapes since 2001, it would have leaked by now. Because of the internal political competition in the US between liberals and conservatives, and Republicans and Democrats, there is always someone in these US Agencies and Departments who will leak ANYTHING that will damage the "other" side of the competition. That is why the US cannot keep things like Gitmo or Abu Ghraib secret for very long. If the Bush CIA were doing what is proposed here, some Democrat in the CIA would have leaked it LONG ago. In fact, he would have made sure the info got out in time to torpedo Bush's re-election in 2004. So, regardless of all this touchy feely stuff about voices and faces changing, which I don't believe is proven in any technically rigorous way anyway, the BIG picture doesn't add up. The Bush CIA couldn't have done it and kept it a secret from the New York Times and Washington Post for 8 years. No way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ Perhaps, but surely there is a more concrete refutation than 'they just couldn't have'. I tend to not believe S-2 & Co. and the American media's paranoid conspiracy theories about the ISI and the PA either, but I try and go beyond 'they just couldn't' when refuting them.

I mean, here at least the CIA is not being accused of conspiring with terrorists to bomb its own headquarters and personnel (several times), and then help the terrorists kill US Army Soldiers, and then help them bomb the Marriott in New York, and then their own ordinance factories - here they are merely being accused of pushing the US/NeoCon agenda.

You tell me which is the bigger 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Personally, I agree that the conspiracy theory that the ISI is now helping any irhabi groups fighting Pakistani troops is also far-fetched. What happened in the past, pre-Lal Masjid, is more of an open question.

Another point about the proposition that the CIA is behind the bin Laden tapes post October 2001: IF this is true then ALL the al Qaeda tapes must be faked, including, and especially, the Zawahiri tapes. If the CIA is putting out bin Laden tapes to al Jazeera, then certainly Zawahiri would object and would blow the whistle on the CIA. Wouldn't he? Or is he part of the conspiracy WITH the CIA? Or is the taped Zawahiri also a double? Does his face and voice keep changing, too? In other words, the whole proposition that the CIA is faking bin Laden is just too incredible. If anyone is faking bin Laden tapes it would have to be Zawahiri himself. HE might want to preserve the figurehead of bin Laden's moral authority for his own purposes but it is just too much to believe that he would acquiesce in the CIA doing it. How could he know what THEY might have bin Laden say next? What if the CIA's bin Laden started telling the mujaheddin to ceasefire in FATA and leave the Zardari government alone? No, this "CIA-faked bin Laden" proposition just doesn't pass a thoughtful examination.

 

[Keysersoze]

Sorry guys just got onto this thread .....let me read through it and get back to ya!

 

[Evil Flare]

OBL have 40% white Hairs on his Beard & the Video in this thread shows Full Black beard

 

[Omar1984]

OBL have 40% white Hairs on his Beard & the Video in this thread shows Full Black beard

lol maybe he uses kala kola on his beard

 

[pakomar]

Even a bcs student like me can make these fake tapes in matlab(all ready done it on my friend and no one can tell difference).many new advance software are available with many advance features. Common software like talkit we see inherits modules of matlab. All the user had to play with the pixel make the picture move according to his liking same can be done on voice by capturing voice(every human voice have different signature) the user can make say anything according to its liking.(this all in matlab very powerful tool easily available)

 

[pakomar]

Bin laden is dead kill by northern alliance CIA is using bin laden to have a reason to keep military bases in Afghanistan.
Even a bcs student like me can make these fake tapes in matlab(all ready done it on my friend and no one can tell difference).many new advance software are available with many advance features. Common software like talkit we see inherits modules of matlab. All the user had to play with the pixel make the picture move according to his liking same can be done on voice by capturing voice(every human voice have different signature) the user can make say anything according to its liking.(this all in matlab very powerful tool easily available)

 

[S-2]

pakomar,

By your logic and with your knowledge of this tool, it would be equally easily available to A.Q. to recreate OBL if already dead and perpetuate his existence for the greater cause?

C.I.A. doesn't need to do this, you know? America and the other forty nations in Afghanistan are there by the request of the Afghani gov't under a U.N. mandate. America already had approval for all the bases we need and are now building them.

A.Q. might need to do so from time to time though.

 

[pakomar]

We all know the government in Afghanistan is pro Americans. If all the people of Afghanistan want American bases then why they are losing ground everyday because majority of people want NATO troop to leave Afghanistan(that why they are fighting).
UN is a joke. UN only supports strong parties like Americans. Where was UN respect when they said according to their survey there is no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq?Americans go over UN head to attack Iraqis. Why? Still they found nothing expect blood of innocent
The whole world saw what happen in Gaza (killing unarmed civilians) UN stood by and watch .what happen in Gaza was war crime UN did not do anything because US support Israeli.

 

[S-2]

pakomar,

Thanks for your reply.

First, we REMAIN discussing OBL and I'm still curious how you'd evaluate the ability of A.Q. to re-create a dead OBL using this amazingly easy and easily-found tool?

Could you answer that question please?

Secondly, regardless of your thoughts about the gov't of Afghanistan's bias to America, wouldn't you agree that the C.I.A. doesn't need to re-create OBL in order to have bases in Afghanistan? Afterall, the U.N. mandate is a stabilization mission that has nothing to do specifically with OBL and America and forty other nations have that authority.

This is an interesting comment by you-

"...because majority of people want NATO troop to leave Afghanistan(that why they are fighting)."

Question #18 from a recent ABC news poll asks-

"18. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the presence of the following groups in Afghanistan today?"

The Afghan presence today of U.S. military forces had a net approval of 63%. NATO/ISAF 59%. Jihadi foreign fighters 11%. Taliban 8%. Foreign NGOs 73%. See page 22, Question 18 please-

ABC/BBC/ARD Afghanistan Poll- Feb. 9, 2009

The majority of people DON'T want NATO troops to leave Afghanistan. You are mis-informed but now you've no excuse to remain so.

 

[DarkStar]

After going through most of the report, I see that it shows there has been a decline in Support for the USA and ISAF since 2005, especially in the soutwest.

 

[S-2]

Wouldn't surprise me. There's been a steady erosion of support for the U.S. virtually throughout. Where are you referring specifically in the survey that I might quickly find it?

Everything about Helmand is likely bad. Of 159,000 hectares under opium cultivation last year in Afghanistan, 103,000 was in Helmand. The other worst areas were Farah, Kandahar, Oruzgan and Nimroz in that descending order- all in the south/southwest. Altogether those provinces accounted for 147,000 hectares of opium.

Says a lot.