FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11"

[Karlin]

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

By the transcript, which is very long, it appears that bin Laden knew in advance of the plans to attack the WTC on 9/11, but that was all - he was just kept in the loop and was not the leader of the operation. He was being informed, and perhaps was asked for input in the planning, as were several others.

Also, can the transcript be believed? There are omissions, marked with "inaudable" as an excuse, and those alone an change the meaning so muc.
- for ex., Bin says " [inaudable] ... we calculated in advance the number of victims...."
but that "inaudable" word could be "Faisel said "we calculated the # of victims", and not actually bin's words or thoughts, that he was quoting others. Even the "I was the most optomistic of all" could refer to one of the actual hijackers or planners, not bin.

It likely WAS bin Laden planning it all, but the FBI cannot connect the dots in any meaningfulll and watertight way.

Even if they could, who knows if the CIA didn't request that Bin Laden do this "favour" for them.... a favour that looks like an attack but is just a pre-war invasion support gaining indicent.

And there are other problems in logic that question the offical story, from the link above:

First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Link to the transcript of Bin Laden's video tape:
http://tinyurl.com/mqhzb

 

[aeon]

RE: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Just that shows, how credible are our leaders and supporters and more importantly this crazy war on terror, just that, and this is enough.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: RE: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/

Just that shows, how credible are our leaders and supporters and more importantly this crazy war on terror, just that, and this is enough.

You are hardly in a position to commment on Credibility.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/

Just that shows, how credible are our leaders and supporters and more importantly this crazy war on terror, just that, and this is enough.

You are hardly in a position to commment on Credibility.

Why are you trying to divert this thread from the credibility of our leaders to me??

Why don't you try to say something on the subject of this thread?

I am not the one who are dragging this country to a fake war based on a lie, my friend, never forget this.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&q

Explain to me, what is this lie Aeon? Give me something proven, none of your wacky conspiracy theories.

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Explain to me, what is this lie Aeon? Give me something proven, none of your wacky conspiracy theories.

Arent we supposed to be in afganisthan for 9-11?

Where are the proof that bin laden is behind 9-11??

there you go.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Explain to me, what is this lie Aeon? Give me something proven, none of your wacky conspiracy theories.

Arent we supposed to be in afganisthan for 9-11?

Where are the proof that bin laden is behind 9-11??

there you go.

1. Do you forget the 30 Canadian Casualties of 9/11?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/cdncasualties.html

2. Bin Laden has admitted to 9/11.

3. You have proved NOTHING.

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

1. Do you forget the 30 Canadian Casualties of 9/11?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/cdncasualties.html

Ok sad, but what the hell this has to do with the evidence that alquada is behind it??

2. Bin Laden has admitted to 9/11.

That is not an evidence,even fbi says it is not an evidence, no wonder why,especially since it is well known, it was shown by us officials, where they show oussama bin laden as lefthanded, when in fact, he is right handed, and on top of it he is shown wearing a gold ring, which is highly forbidden by orthodox islam.Just like when powell went to the united nations with fabricated evidence of wmd in iraq, it was a hoax.

The anthrax, the building 7, operation northwood, shows involvement of the us governement.

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

 

[DurkaDurka]

RE: FBi:"No hard evidence

These are all your theories Aeon, not proof. Link to a credible media source which will back your claims please.

 

[missile]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&q

Osama has a habit of taking credit for many things that he probably hasn't done. This just makes him a liar..and a terrorist,too.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: FBi:"No hard evidence

These are all your theories Aeon, not proof. Link to a credible media source which will back your claims please.

They are all facts.

building 7 , here is a video, where you see the leaseholder of building 7 saying they have controlled demolish building 7

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV


Don't believe that "pull" means demolition??

here is a video that proves pull means controlled demolition

http://tinyurl.com/c3f9f



now the anthrax

This week's New Scientist reports that the FBI has yet to catch the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks. "Investigators are virtually certain of one thing, though: it was an inside job. The anthrax attacker is an American scientist - and worse, one from within the US's own biodefence establishment... If he wished to scale up US military action against Iraq, he almost succeeded - many in Washington tried hard to see Saddam Hussein's hand in the attacks. If he wished merely to make the US pour billions into biodefence, he did succeed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,,648873,00.html





And the operation norhwood, is a declassified military document that was declassified in 1992, thankx to JFK's oliver stone movie to make this happened.

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Osama has a habit of taking credit for many things that he probably hasn't done. This just makes him a liar..and a terrorist,too.

Oussama and his entire family can go to hell, i wouldnt care.

 

[sanch]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&q

building 7 , here is a video, where you see the leaseholder of building 7 saying they have controlled demolish building 7

I haven't seen this before. The building was on fire and they could not contain it and so they told the leaser they were going to pull it. Why is this even significant?

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

building 7 , here is a video, where you see the leaseholder of building 7 saying they have controlled demolish building 7

I haven't seen this before. The building was on fire and they could not contain it and so they told the leaser they were going to pull it. Why is this even significant?

Because pull it means, controlled demolition, which requires weeks of preparations from demolition crew to do it, and secondly because the officials story says, it came down because of wtc debris and fire damages, this is an evidence that the us officials story is bogus.

 

[sanch]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&q

It is intertesting that there may be two versions. Perhaps this guy used the word pull in a different way. From the video it looks like it pancaked because of severe structural damage. The buildings in the financial district are anchored by bedrock but even the slightest shift in the concrete can cause cracks and ruptures which can weaken the overall architecture.

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

It is intertesting that there may be two versions. Perhaps this guy used the word pull in a different way. From the video it looks like it pancaked because of severe structural damage. The buildings in the financial district are anchored by bedrock but even the slightest shift in the concrete can cause cracks and ruptures which can weaken the overall architecture.

You are right.

Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan, later attempted to clarify:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
McQuillan has commented that by "it", Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

That doesnt make sense at all,it took them 2 years to come with this answer, pathetic, here is the transcript of what sylverstein said.

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.[94]

They made the decision to pull(demolition controlled) and we watched the building collapse,to me it is totally obvious, that he said controlled demolition, otherwise how would they explain that the building fell at free fall speed??

 

[I think not]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&q

Ah Aeon, I missed your daily dose of fiction. Glad to see you're still immune to common sense.

 

[aeon]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Ah Aeon, I missed your daily dose of fiction. Glad to see you're still immune to common sense.

The only fictions in here, is the us officials story on 9-11.

 

[Toro]

RE: FBi:"No hard evidence

I wish more of the Left would spout this stuff.

 

[Toro]

Re: FBi:"No hard evidence linking bin Laden with 9/11&a

Arent we supposed to be in afganisthan for 9-11?

Where are the proof that bin laden is behind 9-11??

there you go.

And its in the interest of the anti-Americans to claim that al-Qaeda is not behind 9/11.