They dumped the body to hide the freezer burns he has accumulated over the years.

You mean the "best before" date had expired?

This is not to sound douchy, but do you have any links on this theory? I have heard it a couple times and haven't seen anything on it and it seems interesting.

Well, you could probably use the google and find a shit-ton of links to previous reports of Osama's death, and if he was killed or died years ago, it would make sense that they would have frozen the body to use it at an opportune time. Over the years I have come to realize that absolutely nothing that is reported by the government or the military can be believed without iron-clad evidence. Dumping the body gets rid of any such forensic evidence.

In other words no. No links, reputable sources or facts.

You honestly believe the George Bush White House had Bin Laden's body but chose not to tell anyone?

lol The George Bush White House...

You honestly believe everything the government and military tell you?

Of course the gov't lie, but the only sources which think he was frozen are completely radical websites with little proof.

Yeah, part of the reason evidence is destroyed is to eliminate proof, right?

You are just generalizing this whole thing and all conspiracy theories. Was there ever any evidence to destroy? Certainly, there are times when evidence is locked away or destroyed, but saying that the evidence was destroyed when there was no original proof is foolish.

One can not simply say the evidence was destroyed in order to prove their point. You could go on to make any claim and back it up by saying there is no evidence because it was destroyed, then go on to say that because it was destroyed, the evidence originally existed. In the argument you are stating it is a known fact that this "freezing" information was destroyed therefore it existed.

Your argument ..... A exists because of B. B happened. therefore A exists.

There is not proof that the documents about a freezing (B in this case) existed.

Since when does an OPINION need to have proof? I just voiced my opinion, if you have a better one, knock yerself out. They made damned sure the facts will never be known, whatever they may be. This is nothing new to them or this whole subject.

Yes, it is your opinion, but you definitely alluded to the fact there was once proof by saying "part of the reason evidence is destroyed is to eliminate proof, right?". From this I assumed you had some knowledge on it. Sorry for the misunderstanding

The only stuff I can find comes from AboveTopSecret and InfoWars, and we know ATS is unreliable the majority of the time. Currently on InfoWars they say that Bin Laden died of kidney failure awhile ago, and they haven't made a claim recently about a frozen Bin Laden

Hah I knew you couldn't answer. r/conspiracy is a house of cards.

I didn't have to read it anywhere to form my own opinion based on the reported "facts" and the entities involved. Why the fuck can't anyone think of anything themselves without having to parrot some link or website? I had not read anything about the theory that they were covering up evidence of freezing, it just seemed like a logical explanation to me. Sorry if original thinking frightens you.

Original thinking? r/conspiracy has this theory in abundance. What it doesn't have is evidence or motive.

I get that conspiracies attract, maybe even demand, that there be no proof. But if you think the government killing its number one enemy and then freezing the body for a long time only announce that they've killed him at a different time and then lob the corpse overboard before anyone will see whether it's even the right guy is a "logical explanation" then why am I arguing with you?

One of us taunting a chimp here. I think you're the chimp and you think it's me.

The most rudimentary amount of searching brings up:

Bin Laden Probably Dead, Says FBI Chief - BBC 2002

Afghani President Says Bin Laden Dead - CNN 2002

Pakistans Musharraf says Bin Laden Dead - Philippine Daily 2002

Madeleine Albright says Bin Laden already dead, US Gov waiting for opportune moment to release info - Fox News 2003

Bin Laden killed in Tora Bora - BBC 2003

In video interview, Bhutto claims Bin Laden already dead - 2007

I just don't understand how he could have been dead and the Bush administration chose not to release this info before the 2008 election in order to give the republicans an edge. If May 1st's attack was simply for show, why wasn't this instituted during the Bush years. It would have done multiple things: brought up the president's approval rating, helped the GOP in 2008, avoided a democratic majority in congress, and would have been a claim to fame for Bush Jr.

To the first two links: The first is based off of no evidence, and the second is only speculation.

To the 3rd link: This claims kidney failure and is the link you provided which is most likely to be true.

4th link: Once again only speculation

5th link: Semi-reasonable speculation, it is still not an article that clearly states Bin Laden was certainly dead.

In response to the 2007 claim: Bhutto said it was Omar Sheikh, and she likely meant to say "the man who killed Daniel Pearl" because Sheikh was imprisoned in 2002 for murdering Pearl. Sheikh was arrested on Feb. 12, 2002. Unless he had already killed Bin Laden prior to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh

All reasonable points.

But I would add, the reason why Bush withheld the info transcends simple politics. He withheld, because his bosses told him it wasn't time yet.

The "War on Terror" was in fact a ruse to bankrupt the country. They needed to wait until the US was completely bankrupt before they could release the news that Bin Laden was dead, otherwise the pressure to stop spending / borrowing would've started.

From 2002 to 2011, the public debt has risen from 5T to 14T, essentially tripled. Its gone from something we could've paid off via being financially responsible...to now something mathematically impossible to pay off.

We are now primed to start our Chap 11 bankruptcy proceedings as we are completely busted out....therefore the bankers will decide what assets get turned over to them to pay for the "debts we've created".

I like where your head is at. I just have trouble believing he has been dead for so long and there was this elaborate plot behind it. It also transcended offices and the current administration played along with it so well. For your hypothesis to be true, they would have had to prepped Obama for some time and either doctored the elections or just got lucky with it. They would have had to control every major news outlet and silenced every single independent source. To me, it is inconceivable the amount of work which would have had to take place around the clock to get to this point. Every news outlet would have to have journalists/writers affiliated with the scheme in order to sway public opinion.

There are other possibilities;

• Its quite possible Bush / Obama never knew the truth, and were told these events were happening when in fact it was all being scripted for their consumption. A real life "reality show" if you will....A select few could've known that OBL was dead and they needed a way to "break the news" to the commander in chief. So they staged a phony raid and let them watch on video and then let the rest play out according to plan.

• Less likely, but still possible is that OBL was indeed alive all this time, but only under close surveillance. They knew his whereabouts all this time but only chose to announce it to our "dear leaders" since the timing was now right.

Personally, I think this story of "we killed him and immediately dumped him in the ocean" is too ridiculous to consider as being true.

Think about it for a second, think about all the logistical / political / and military concerns. Could all those decision be made that quickly?

We held Saddam for years in prison before killing him. His body was displayed after death and he was muslim. And now our biggest "arch enemy" boogie-man bad guy is killed and we immediately dump him in the ocean and have no photos....uh huh...

Moreover, the Bin Ladens are a very important and connected family not only in Saudi but in the West as well (ie. Carlyle Group and major investments in Boeing and Microsoft).

Does it seem reasonable that this important Saudi family, who we buy the vast majority of our oil from, and who are part of a worldwide investment groups, that we would kill one of their sons and immediately go dump him in the ocean?

The whole situation is too ambiguous to put a single theory to it. It could range from the public being told the majority of the truth to some insane plot. Bear in mind that this raid on his hideout has been in the works for a few weeks. There was likely a replica built somewhere in the US and Seal Team Six has been rehearsing the attack for two weeks. Two weeks is how long the media claims the team has been getting ready. I am certain that a replica of the compound was constructed in order for dry runs and that would have taken another two weeks minimum for a makeshift model to be made.

I will stand by my idea that Bin Laden is in US custody and will be tortured for any/all information until he is dead. The SEAL team who was in on the operation is amazing and they could have easily taken Bin Laden as a prisoner. If this was a giant plot constructed over time then they definitely would have prepared a better alibi.

The alibi is another thing that bothers me. It is too simple for a giant scam. If it took years of development, then they definitely could have constructed a better story. This is what keeps me believing that it this whole thing is closer to what is being reported than what is being speculated. Maybe that is the plan; make the burial seem so trivial that it leaves us thinking it couldn't have been some elaborate plot.

If we look at it from the angle that OBL was already dead it makes perfect sense.

Let's say OBL died from kidney failure, typhoid, or whatever, some time ago but not as a direct result of American military action, then due to human nature it would be incredibly easy to perpetuate the lie that he was still alive.

The lie would be continued to allow the War on Terror to go on and allow the US to install friendly, if not puppet, governments, and to keep the world in a state of fear.

Installation complete. Job done. However, the world now thinks it's safe, and everyone's forgotten about OBL, nobody cared about him anymore. So, the threats of nuclear retaliation in the event of OBL being captured or killed are made public. Not long after, OBL is killed. Convenient. The world is now scared again, preparing for a revenge attack.

So, how do they convince the world that OBL has just been killed if he's already dead? Photoshop is out of the question as everyone and his brother can now spot a fake at ten yards. A double is out of the question, because they're just as easy to spot.

Best way to do it is to perform an operation that no one knew about, and supposedly destroy any and all evidence before it's discovered. "Oh, you just found out that we killed Bin Laden, and want proof? Sorry, too late, we already got rid of it. We proved it to ourselves though."

It's a much better system than forging evidence, because there's nothing to disprove. Destroying the evidence is such a ridiculous move it can only be perceived to be true, "because surely if they were going to fake it, it would be more elaborate than saying they threw him off a boat."

Benazir Bhutto, president of Pakistan, confirmed the assassination of Bin Laden years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8120236576648647371#

(3:45)

I see your video from November 2, 2007, and raise you a transcript of an interview from November 3, 2007. Where she states that Bin Laden has not been caught and his whereabouts are unknown. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/03/cnr.06.html

She doesn't state anything about it again. It is likely that she meant to say Daniel Pearl because Omar Sheikh(supposed assailant of Bin Laden) has been held in prison since 2002 for the murder of Daniel Pearl.

My own unsustained, factless theory is that a living, breathing Bin Laden that could spill some easy-to-misinterpret sentences during a trial, like about how at first he was paid in dollars as a 'freedom fighter' against the russians as well as his family's association with a certain other famous american political dinasty. So it was better for everybody if he just stopped babbling.

They are stone-cold hard asses. I doubt they would take lightly to that menace, and I almost guarantee his body was mangled and shot with extreme prejudice by Seal Team Six.

they are professionals.

I know, that's why I know they wouldn't do anything unprofessional, but in the situation and the month-long preparation I feel like feelings towards Bin Laden likely intensified, and it is possible that this was the case.

This thread stems from my original counter-argument to people saying it was a conspiracy due to the body being dumped. NOW, I feel it is equally likely that US intelligence has Bin Laden and wanted to mislead the rest, or these reports are 100% honest.

You know, I had the same thought, it does seem more plausible than the freezer theory.

It seems highly likely that Bin Laden is dead or in custody. Another theory could be that he was captured, then they used this method rather than tell the media so they can "interrogate" Bin Laden without reporters saying that torture is involved. I feel like either one is plausible, but it seems very likely they would say he was dead in order to get the UN and other organizations trying to stop torture off of their back.

The number one reason they might want to dispose of Bin Laden's body quickly .... it wasn't really Bin Laden. The Pentagon undoubtedly has DNA samples of Bin Laden gathered many years ago, when he was working for them. I'm not saying the body was not that of Bin Laden, merely that it would be a good reason for all this haste about getting rid of the evidence -- excuse me, the remains.

I just don't understand how he could have been dead and the Bush administration chose not to release this info before the 2008 election in order to give the republicans an edge. If May 1st's attack was simply for show, why wasn't this instituted during the Bush years. It would have done multiple things: brought up the president's approval rating, helped the GOP in 2008, avoided a democratic majority in congress, and would have been a claim to fame for Bush Jr.

To the first two links: The first is based off of no evidence, and the second is only speculation.

To the 3rd link: This claims kidney failure and is the link you provided which is most likely to be true.

4th link: Once again only speculation

5th link: Semi-reasonable speculation, it is still not an article that clearly states Bin Laden was certainly dead.

In response to the 2007 claim: Bhutto said it was Omar Sheikh, and she likely meant to say "the man who killed Daniel Pearl" because Sheikh was imprisoned in 2002 for murdering Pearl. Sheikh was arrested on Feb. 12, 2002. Unless he had already killed Bin Laden prior to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh