It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI investigators say they have found no evidence that Orlando shooter had gay lovers

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: xuenchen

Read Phil Hanley's, "See something, Say Nothing" or even check out this YT video:

DHS Whistleblower Phil Haney exposes Obama administration during Press Conference


This will open the eyes of many blind.

Truth is introducing itself to everyone.

Our situation will be getting a lot better in the coming months. Just keep your eyes and ears open...




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Perhaps mentioned somewhere earlier in the current two pages, but surely, the FBI can tell from his phone records and internet records exactly what he has been doing?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: xuenchen

Perhaps mentioned somewhere earlier in the current two pages, but surely, the FBI can tell from his phone records and internet records exactly what he has been doing?



Go Phone



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So I'm thinking now that the FBI not finding any "evidence" that Mateen had gay lovers and not finding any "direct links" to ISIS could be because of this:

Trump proven right once again, FBI Chief, Can't investigate Muslims

It's very easy to miss what you don't look for...



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: xuenchen

So I'm thinking now that the FBI not finding any "evidence" that Mateen had gay lovers and not finding any "direct links" to ISIS could be because of this:

Trump proven right once again, FBI Chief, Can't investigate Muslims

It's very easy to miss what you don't look for...


Or, maybe the FBI just doesn't discuss or release any information until they have completely finished their investigation.

They're not a news organization, ya know. They're not in the habit of releasing info.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Or, maybe the FBI just doesn't discuss or release any information until they have completely finished their investigation.


Maybe... except they are discussing and releasing information, as exemplified by the quotes and other content of the article... and the OP isn't about the evidence they have but the evidence they don't look for and therefore cannot discuss/release ever.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Even if he did, or was, or whatever, it's complete irrelevant. Someone remind me again why the FBI investigated him MULTIPLE times? Whether or not he had additional motives is irrelevant. We all typically have more than one reason for the things we do. He had an established history supporting his motives, and declared them intently while he was carrying out his plan. Anyone who tries to replace that narrative with something else has their own reason for doing so.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee


Or, maybe the FBI just doesn't discuss or release any information until they have completely finished their investigation.


Maybe... except they are discussing and releasing information, . . .


Officially?

A no-name FBI "source" is not credible info.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Who could believe anything out of the mouth of the FBI!



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xuenchen

Who could believe anything out of the mouth of the FBI!



I'd believe the FBI if they conclude that Hillary Clinton should be indicted. If they don't, then I'm with you!



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

So I'm thinking now that the FBI not finding any "evidence" that Mateen had gay lovers and not finding any "direct links" to ISIS could be because of this:


Or maybe the FBI can't find any evidence for anything because the event never happened. A bunch of crisis actors and play acting, as some people have claimed.
edit on 24-6-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
‘No evidence’ for gay claims about Orlando shooter – FBI

FBI basically says now that all Gays are liars, deceitful, and untrustworthy witnesses.

They have dismissed all the reports coming from gays that claim that they saw Mateen at the Pulse club, that Mateen contacted them by phone apps, that Mateen hit on them and tried to date them, that Mateen had any gay lovers.

Aparently, the homosexuals are the worst eyewitnesses among the humans, so much so, that every single one of them has now been dismissed.

The only people the FBI trusts are the "straight men" and "straight women" that claim Mateen said something indicating Islamic Jihadist leanings.

Message is clear, "straight" people are "honest", and "gays" are "dishonest".

Wow!



If only those people could provide some evidence. If there are communications between them and mateen, there is a record of it. Maybe one of them can come forward with their proof that they were in fact having sexual and/or romantic contact with Mateen.

I know you need to spin the story around to suit your biased perspective, but you're trying way too hard right now. Take a step back and look at this objectively. All humans are weak to inaccurate eyewitness testimony, doesn't matter who they are.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is a clear cut case of Islamic Terror and they just can't find an alternate narrative that will stick. I don't understand why it is so hard to call it what it is.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

If only those people could provide some evidence.



How do you provide evidence that you talked to someone who is now dead?

Do you go around filming your interactions between people?



If there are communications between them and mateen, there is a record of it.


Records can be faked. It's the digital age. Photographs can be photo-shopped. Emails can be artificially inserted into the computer records.



Maybe one of them can come forward with their proof that they were in fact having sexual and/or romantic contact with Mateen.


Maybe if one of them was clever like Bill Clinton's Mistress, and kept some clothes with spilled semen on it, they could do some DNA testing and prove this. But, who goes around collecting semen from lovers, when those lovers aren't somebody important like the President of the US?

Why are witness statements not valid in this case?

We use them in courts all the time.


edit on 24-6-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: VivreLibre

If only those people could provide some evidence.



How do you provide evidence that you talked to someone who is now dead?

Do you go around filming your interactions between people?



If there are communications between them and mateen, there is a record of it.


Records can be faked. It's the digital age. Photographs can be photo-shopped. Emails can be artificially inserted into the computer records.



Maybe one of them can come forward with their proof that they were in fact having sexual and/or romantic contact with Mateen.


Maybe if one of them was clever like Bill Clinton's Mistress, and kept some clothes with spilled semen on it, they could do some DNA testing and prove this. But, who goes around collecting semen from lovers, when those lovers aren't somebody important like the President of the US?

Why are witness statements not valid in this case?

We use them in courts all the time.



Of course you always have some excuse to hold on to your ignorance.

Nothing anyone says will help you.

You're making a claim, prove it. I see no proof he was gay, and the FBI says they haven't come across any. Maybe they will in the future. Until then, why believe the word of what some random person said? Well, you will because you're gullible and easily manipulated.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: VivreLibre

If only those people could provide some evidence.



How do you provide evidence that you talked to someone who is now dead?

Do you go around filming your interactions between people?



If there are communications between them and mateen, there is a record of it.


Records can be faked. It's the digital age. Photographs can be photo-shopped. Emails can be artificially inserted into the computer records.



Maybe one of them can come forward with their proof that they were in fact having sexual and/or romantic contact with Mateen.


Maybe if one of them was clever like Bill Clinton's Mistress, and kept some clothes with spilled semen on it, they could do some DNA testing and prove this. But, who goes around collecting semen from lovers, when those lovers aren't somebody important like the President of the US?

Why are witness statements not valid in this case?

We use them in courts all the time.



. . . the FBI says they haven't come across any.


What is the name of the FBI agent/director who stated this?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

Of course you always have some excuse to hold on to your ignorance.

Nothing anyone says will help you.


True, I am lacking the knowledge. I only have "reports". I believe the FBI has the "knowledge". But, not what they say.
Like this articles says,

FBI: No evidence Omar Mateen led a secret gay life

[QUOTE]
The AP story also mentions Pulse regular Jim Van Horn who claimed Mateen was a regular at the club and repeatedly tried to pick up men. Van Horn tells the AP no one from the FBI has spoken to him
[END QUOTE]

FBI don't need to speak to witnesses if they don't have any hard evidence contradicting the official FBI story.

and

[QUOTE]
Just yesterday there was a report at TMZ claiming the hotel where “Miguel” claimed to have met with Mateen had security video backing up his claim. Granted this is TMZ but the story says, “We’re told the FBI went to the Ambassador [Hotel] Tuesday night and took a copy of the surveillance footage.”
[END QUOTE]

But, the FBI does need to collect any real hard evidence someone might have.

So, now the FBI has the VIDEO from the Security Cameras showing Miguel and Mateen on film, which the Ambassador Hotel handed over to the FBI. The video is in FBI custody. So, the evidence is "dissappeared" into the FBI vaults.

The Hotel should have made a backup copy of the tape, and published it on the internet, before giving the FBI.

But, who would have thought the FBI would take the evidence, and then say there was none?

See?

Just think about it.

What Video would the Ambadassor Hotel give to the FBI, if it wasn't some video showing Mateen?

They probably have lots of tapes from various times in record. Something must prompt them to "select" some particular tape to hand over.


edit on 24-6-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: VivreLibre

If only those people could provide some evidence.



How do you provide evidence that you talked to someone who is now dead?

Do you go around filming your interactions between people?



If there are communications between them and mateen, there is a record of it.


Records can be faked. It's the digital age. Photographs can be photo-shopped. Emails can be artificially inserted into the computer records.



Maybe one of them can come forward with their proof that they were in fact having sexual and/or romantic contact with Mateen.


Maybe if one of them was clever like Bill Clinton's Mistress, and kept some clothes with spilled semen on it, they could do some DNA testing and prove this. But, who goes around collecting semen from lovers, when those lovers aren't somebody important like the President of the US?

Why are witness statements not valid in this case?

We use them in courts all the time.



. . . the FBI says they haven't come across any.


What is the name of the FBI agent/director who stated this?


You have neglected to read the multiple articles covering this exact topic.

You have bought into an unsubstantiated story about Omar being gay. No one making this claim has come forward with any proof of this. It's so unfounded that you can't even connect dots to make a conspiracy out of it. Yet, it sounds nice to you that he was a frustrated closeted gay instead of a boogeymonster. Evidence points towards a more obvious explanation, but why look at that when you can continue to believe in and spread a lie?

You can't hide under the covers forever.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Evidence points towards a more obvious explanation, but why look at that when you can continue to believe in and spread a lie?


What evidence?

You have seen this evidence personally? Are you FBI?

Just trying to clarify where your certain knowledge comes from.

Most of us have to read the news.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

Most of us have to read the news.



Maybe you ought to work on your reading comprehension then.

Your pyrrhonian approach serves no purpose and, if you really think that way, I have to wonder why you even bother to post in these threads.




top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join