How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
And Canadians STILL think we should be in Afghanistan??

This was the event "created" to start this whole chain of events.


9/11 Theologian Says Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Is Now a Fact, Not a Theory

October 21, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca


In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled “The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out.” Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.

Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

“'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion."
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Perhaps we could create one thread for the merging of these various World Trade Center destruction theories? They seem to continue to spring up here and there, under various thread titles.

In my opinion, notwithstanding whatever circumstantial evidence may exist to the contrary (which is just that — circumstantial, and generally suspect, even at that), I don't think that any administration in the United States of America would have the audacity to stage an event so contrary to the interests of its citizens. To do so could be held as no less than treason, and it would be a violation of every oath that any holder of public office would make prior to taking their position. I don't think that anyone going into office would have such a vicious plan to further their own interests.

On a separate note (and it is indeed a separate note), the mission in Afghanistan began with much debate and discussion in the House of Commons (notwithstanding current requests for a debate — that is not the topc at hand), and, in general, the House gave its blessing to the Canadian Forces in their endeavours. The mission was launched in Canada's interests — not as a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of "staged" World Trade Center disaster (which was never, in my opinion, "staged", as you would suggest, DerekJay).
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
Re: RE: How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

FiveParadox said:
Perhaps we could create one thread for the merging of these various World Trade Center destruction theories? They seem to continue to spring up here and there, under various thread titles.

In my opinion, notwithstanding whatever circumstantial evidence may exist to the contrary (which is just that — circumstantial, and generally suspect, even at that), I don't think that any administration in the United States of America would have the audacity to stage an event so contrary to the interests of its citizens. To do so could be held as no less than treason, and it would be a violation of every oath that any holder of public office would make prior to taking their position. I don't think that anyone going into office would have such a vicious plan to further their own interests.

On a separate note (and it is indeed a separate note), the mission in Afghanistan began with much debate and discussion in the House of Commons (notwithstanding current requests for a debate — that is not the topc at hand), and, in general, the House gave its blessing to the Canadian Forces in their endeavours. The mission was launched in Canada's interests — not as a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of "staged" World Trade Center disaster (which was never, in my opinion, "staged", as you would suggest, DerekJay).

SO what you are saying is that it is too far fetched to be believable, and Bush wouldn't have the "audacity" 8O

Don't be so naive.

I find it easier to beieve this than to believe that fire caused 3 towers to free-fall straight to the ground moments after getting hit by planes. Just how can you explain this???
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
zoofer said:

Zoofer... you're reaction is like many who are unwilling to accept anything other than the "official" Bullshit story that the US government spoon fed you.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I would judge by your response then, DerekJay, that you created this thread with the intention of having it serve as a discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, rather than as a discussion of Canada's decision to opt into an intervention in Afghanistan, as the thread's header would lead a member to believe.

If that is the case, I have no intention of furthering this discussion.
 

Johnny Utah

Council Member
Mar 11, 2006
1,434
1
38
DerekJay said:
And Canadians STILL think we should be in Afghanistan??

This was the event "created" to start this whole chain of events.


9/11 Theologian Says Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Is Now a Fact, Not a Theory

October 21, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca


In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. Despite the many enduring mysteries of the 9/11 attacks, Dr. Griffin concluded, "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

On Oct. 15th and 16th, New Yorkers filled two venues to hear the prominent theologian and author of two books on 9/11 give a presentation entitled “The Destruction of the Trade Towers: A Christian Theologian Speaks Out.” Dr. Griffin has continued to blaze a trail of courage, leading where most media and elected officials have feared to tread. His presentation went straight to the core of one of the most powerful indictments of the official story, the collapse of the towers and WTC 7.

Dr. Griffin included excerpts from the firemen’s tapes which were recently released as a result of a prolonged court battle led by victim’s families represented by attorney Norman Siegel and reported in the NY Times. He also included statements by many witnesses. These sources gave ample testimony giving evidence of explosions going off in the buildings. A 12 minute film was shown for the audiences, who saw for themselves the undeniable evidence for controlled demolition.

Dr. Griffin listed ten characteristics of the collapses which all indicate that the buildings did not fall due to being struck by planes or the ensuing fires. He explained the buildings fell suddenly without any indication of collapse. They fell straight into their own footprint at free-fall speed, meeting virtually no resistance as they fell--a physical impossibility unless all vertical support was being progressively removed by explosives severing the core columns. The towers were built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and 160 mile per hour winds, and nothing about the plane crashes or ensuing fires gave any indication of causing the kind of damage that would be necessary to trigger even a partial or progressive collapse, much less the shredding of the buildings into dust and fragments that could drop at free-fall speed. The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire. There was a volcanic-like dust cloud from the concrete being pulverized, and no physical mechanism other than explosives can begin to explain how so much of the buildings' concrete was rendered into extremely fine dust. The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward. These are all facts that have been avoided by mainstream and even most of the alternative media. Again, these are characteristics of the kind of controlled demolitions that news people and firefighters were describing on the morning of 9/11. Those multiple first-person descriptions of controlled demolition were hidden away for almost four years by the City of New York until a lawsuit finally forced the city to release them. Dr. Griffin's study of these accounts has led him beyond his earlier questioning of the official story of the collapses, to his above-quoted conclusion: The destruction of the three WTC buildings with explosives by US government terrorists is no longer a hypothesis, but a fact that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s important to note that Dr. Griffin is one of many prominent intellectuals--including the likes of Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips--who have seen through the major discrepancies of the official explanation of 9/11 and have risen to challenge it. These brave individuals represent the tip of an ever-growing iceberg of discreet 9/11 skeptics. Indeed, 9/11 skepticism appears to be almost universal among intellectuals who have examined the evidence, since there has not yet been a single serious attempt to refute the case developed by Dr. Griffin and such like-minded thinkers as Nafeez Ahmed and Mike Ruppert. As for the general public, polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians (63%, Toronto Star, May '04) and half of New Yorkers (Zogby, August 2004) agree that top US leaders conspired to murder nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01.

How, then, can the mainstream US media continue to ignore the story of the century? Perhaps the best answer was given by Dr. Griffin himself in the conclusion of his talk, and is worth quoting at length:

"The evidence for this conclusion (that 9/11 was an inside job) has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

"There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

“'The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ‘X-Files’ proportions and insidiousness.'

"The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration’s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.

"In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this lecture---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed elsewhere---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion."

:roll:
Stop Drinking The:

:roll:
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
Re: RE: How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

FiveParadox said:
I would judge by your response then, DerekJay, that you created this thread with the intention of having it serve as a discussion of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, rather than as a discussion of Canada's decision to opt into an intervention in Afghanistan, as the thread's header would lead a member to believe.

If that is the case, I have no intention of furthering this discussion.

What's important to understand here, is that 911 was critical in starting this whole chain of events - Us invades Afghanistan, then Iraq. This whole "intervention" is based on a false "war on terrorism" that was created in order to stir up the West into believing that it was necessary to act in the Middle East.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
DerekJay, then perhaps you should review the Hansard. The Government of Canada had debated the issue at length with the opposition parties, and the result in the House of Commons was that a majority of members supported making a constructive effort in Afghanistan, while the intervention in Iraq was deemed not to be in Canada's interests. The options were weighted, DerekJay.

You can, and should, access the Hansard at the Parliament of Canada Web site.

:!: Revision : Corrected a formatting error.
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
Re: RE: How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

FiveParadox said:
DerekJay, then perhaps you should review the Hansard. The Government of Canada had debated the issue at length with the opposition parties, and the result in the House of Commons was that a majority of members supported making a constructive effort in Afghanistan, while the intervention in Iraq was deemed not to be in Canada's interests. The options were weighted, DerekJay.

You can, and should, access the Hansard at the Parliament of Canada Web site.

:!: Revision : Corrected a formatting error.

I can appreciate your referral... but know that I am well aware to the fact that no Canadian politician is yet willing to openly refute the tripe that the US calls the 911 Commision (investigation). The "official" story is accepted like the gospel, and while so much evidence suggests otherwise, nobody in our government has the cahunas to question. Rather, we are to follow like sheep, and believe what we are told. It's a lot easier to accept than to think the "unspeakable". Too far fetched :roll:

It might take many more years for the "real" story to unfold and the truth exposed... but one day, we will be asking ourselves:

"How could we be so gullible?"

I just hope that most of our soldiers come home safely.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
The Canadian Forces may be closer to coming home than we would like, in terms of supporters of the intervention in Afghanistan, if the Government of Canada continues to put concrete walls in front of the opposition's requests for a discussion on the matter. The Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., is already requesting an emergency debate on the matter (which the Prime Minister of Canada himself does not hold the authority to prevent), and if the New Democratic Party of Canada uses an opposition day to throw down a motion to compel the Forces to withdraw, then that could be an interesting parliametary debate indeed.
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
Re: RE: How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

FiveParadox said:
The Canadian Forces may be closer to coming home than we would like, in terms of supporters of the intervention in Afghanistan, if the Government of Canada continues to put concrete walls in front of the opposition's requests for a discussion on the matter. The Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., is already requesting an emergency debate on the matter (which the Prime Minister of Canada himself does not hold the authority to prevent), and if the New Democratic Party of Canada uses an opposition day to throw down a motion to compel the Forces to withdraw, then that could be an interesting parliametary debate indeed.

Yes indeed!
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
For the purposes of our debate, DerekJay, it would be fair for me to inform you that I support the current mission in Afghanistan, insofar as it remains true to its original intent and purpose. However, like many other Canadians, I support the need for a comprehensive discussion of the future of the mission (while I simultaneously efforts by some to order a spontaneous withdrawal).
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Re: RE: How Bush got support for Afghanistan Invasion

FiveParadox said:
Perhaps we could create one thread for the merging of these various World Trade Center destruction theories? They seem to continue to spring up here and there, under various thread titles.

In my opinion, notwithstanding whatever circumstantial evidence may exist to the contrary (which is just that — circumstantial, and generally suspect, even at that), I don't think that any administration in the United States of America would have the audacity to stage an event so contrary to the interests of its citizens. To do so could be held as no less than treason, and it would be a violation of every oath that any holder of public office would make prior to taking their position. I don't think that anyone going into office would have such a vicious plan to further their own interests.

.

9-11 gave reason to invades afganisthan,which weapons dealers like carlysle group(bush, bin ladens,and other crooks) made incredible amount of profit, same for lockheed martin etcc

9-11 gave reason to invade iraq, which halliburton is the main coorporation in iraq, where cheeney worked before being in the administration, condi rice which she has worked for chevron and exxon, which are coorporation that are in iraq right now with BP and shell from UK for the oil in iraq, only the 4 of them are allowed to operate there.

9-11 gave reason to create patriot act, which gives more power to the governement.


9-11 gave reason to bring the military budget from 250 bn to 450 bn a year, and again who is profitting it?? the same peoples and friends of the administration.




9-11 doesnt benifit americans in generals, but it is a quite different story for the whole administration.They were crazy enough to lie about the war in iraq, thousands and thousand of innoncent people are dead since, and they are still saying the same stupidity, means they were ready to do that kind of event on 9-11, and operation northwood is a good exemple of what people in power are ready to do.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood


Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the highest ranking member of the U.S. military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
Thanks Eon,

What I find hard to believe is how people still can call this a "conspiracy theory"???

There is far too much evidence to prove otherwise. Every day that goes by, it's harder to believe the "official" government story. Operation Northwood is a prime example of how far these individuals in power are willing to go, in order to achieve their objectives.

Are they waiting for Bush to outright admit to the world that he was a part of it??? Sometimes, I think that's what it will take!

Fat chance of that happening though.

I do know that over the years, once it has all blown over, a "retired" military figure, or key player in this whole operation will spill the beans... unfortunately, by that time, the damage will already have been done.
 

DerekJay

New Member
Mar 14, 2006
35
0
6
FiveParadox wrote:
Perhaps we could create one thread for the merging of these various World Trade Center destruction theories? They seem to continue to spring up here and there, under various thread titles.

In my opinion, notwithstanding whatever circumstantial evidence may exist to the contrary (which is just that — circumstantial, and generally suspect, even at that), I don't think that any administration in the United States of America would have the audacity to stage an event so contrary to the interests of its citizens. To do so could be held as no less than treason, and it would be a violation of every oath that any holder of public office would make prior to taking their position. I don't think that anyone going into office would have such a vicious plan to further their own interests.


FiveParadox,

How can you call 3 buildings freefalling in a nice little pile "circumstantial"??

Never in history has a skyscraper imploded and fallen due to fire. Who do you think planted the explosives?

The "terrorists"
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I would not think that Canada's role in Afghanistan could be deemed to be "damage" by any stretch of the word. I would think that anyone would acknowledge that the work that the Canadian Forces is involved in is, though at times controversial, honest in nature.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
At what stage in this alternate conspiracy did the White House enlist bin Laden to be a part of it. Bin Laden did admit on the Kandahar tape in detail how he planned it and how his experience as an engineer helped him see the structural weakness of the towers. Why would be admit to this if he was not involved.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: How Bush got support

If he was still working for Uncle Sam. Bin Laden and George Bush have been good for each other haven't they, wonder why they haven't caught him yet.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
sanch said:
At what stage in this alternate conspiracy did the White House enlist bin Laden to be a part of it. Bin Laden did admit on the Kandahar tape in detail how he planned it and how his experience as an engineer helped him see the structural weakness of the towers. Why would be admit to this if he was not involved.


Why would he have denied right after 9-11 the 16th and 28 of september, he wasnt involved??


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oussama_bin_Laden

Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the United States government named bin Laden as the prime suspect. However, in an interview published in Ummat Karachi, on 28 September 2001, although not widely reported at the time, bin Laden stated:"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.....



In December 2001 U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured a videotape during a raid on a house in Jalalabad, which allegedly shows bin Laden discussing the September 11th attacks with a group of followers. However, the quality of the tape is poor, and bin Laden is seen writing with his right hand, although according to the FBI he is left handed. Furthermore, he is shown wearing a gold ring, which some claim is forbidden for men by orthodox Islam. This idea has been disputed by numerous videos and photos of Bin Laden wearing the same ring on many different occasions. [18] In some low resolution pictures of the video, bin Laden appears smiling with a more round face and a nose which is different to the one seen in previous images of him. However, this is also disputed by higher resolution photos of the same video which show a man who does resemble bin Laden [19]. Still, because of the anomalies surrounding this video, the authenticity of the tape remains highly disputed.