Printable View
If you missed it in the newspapers it's because it wasn't in the newspapers but this week the FBI have admitted that they don't actually know who was behind the 9/11 hijackings.
When contacted to ask why the Most Wanted Terrorist Poster issued by the FBI for Bin Laden made no mention of 9/11 FBI spokesman Rex Tomb replied:
Quote:
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
jayare, so far I have only watched the first 12 minutes of your link......very, very interesting.
Shall watch the rest later, certainly makes you think doesn't it??!!
That second link is awesome
I just watched the whole of that video and you are right Brokencross it certainly makes you think.
hmm, that really makes you think. makes sense too
watched some of it. all these things are interesting but if you check on google there is sites that take each 9/11 theory and explain it.
I haven't seen an explanation for molten steel yet. Without an explanation of what caused vast amounts of steel to melt the entire official version falls apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by obiron
But we've been over all this before, this thread is about something different. Back in 2001, before the invasion of Iraq to "root out" the perpetrator of 9/11 "dead or alive it's all the same to me" to quote George Bush, we were told there was no doubt about it, we were shown a video tape and told it was Bin Laden confessing to the crime. If that tape was authentic then that is hard evidence and if the FBI say they have no hard evidence then it wasn't authentic so who made it and why?
A country was invaded and thousands of civilians died on the pretext that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, now we are told there is no hard evidence that he was. The Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country to stand trial, the offer was rejected by Bush out of hand because there was no doubt he was guilty, thousands of innocent people died as a result.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...573975,00.htmlQuote:
Staff and agencies
Sunday October 14, 2001
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
Why isn't this on the front page of every newspaper in the world?
its the guardian says it all to me..
bin laden is a CIA asset that is why they do not want him they already know where he is.. afterall he was in an American military hospital for kidney treatments in Dubai July of 2001 and he was wanted THEN for supposedly being behind the bombing of the USS Cole.. hhmmm.
I think Bin Laden may be more than just a CIA asset, the trouble in the Middle East was certainly orchestrated by the giant corporations especially the oil companies and his family has a great deal of influence with them. Unlike Zawqari who was just a third rate thug, a sadistic psycopath who took the cause of the extrme Muslim fanatics to justify his hoodlum activities. He was a nobody elevated to the heights of Al Qaeda leader by American propoganda. Where was his army when he was kicked to death by American soldiers? Are we supposed to believe that the Al Qaeda top man in Iraq didn't have one bodyguard? Like Bin Laden the Americans could have taken him out any time, he was hated by all sides even Al Qaeda, by all but a few extreme fanatics.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjwahwah
One thing about the death of Zawqari, it was very conveniently timed and considering the FBI admission that they have no evidence against Bin Laden means that first they decided to invade Afghanistan then started looking for an excuse so was 9/11.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=lone+lantern
repost but scary
the great thing about al-Zarqawi is he doesn't and didn't exist. The whole thing... sayin' they killed him last week... rubbish! This "guy" has got 9 lives because they've captured or "killed" him multiple times already, remember? If you look this up you'll be confused as to how many times this has happened before! Strange how Iraqis don't even believe he existed. They needed "al-Zarqawi" to make a case for an al-Qaeda presence in Iraq....not to mention it comes at a time when Bush's approval is at a all time low! it's all rubbish!
grantyg... good video... is a amalgamation of several videos... Dean Haglunds spin-off of the X-files pilot show that never made it to the screen ( I have a good interview with Dean Haglund about 9/11 if anyones interested), loose change and hufnagel's documentary. Hufnagel who by the way works with Jimmy Walter and William Rodriguez (the last survivor of the twin towers pulled from the rubble - he knows what happened but, noones listening.)
Anyways... that Loose Change 2 video was at Googles video #1 for several weeks but, it never once showed up in the "popular" section.... google, corp crap.
am still watching the video... and of course they included Alex Jones.. the godfather of the 9/11 truth movement.