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.
Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'
Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, what do you consider solid evidence.
Originally posted by esdad71
The solid evidence is the trail that AQ gave from 93 to 2001. That is all you need.
“On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “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.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'
Again, what do you consider solid evidence.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by billybob
when torture is used to gain 'evidence', it is no 'evidence'
Again, what do you consider solid evidence.
Originally posted by 2smooth4ya
To those who believe in the alleged tape of Muslim celebrating the United States being attacked on 9/11, please re-review the tape and see where the sun is located in that footage.
www.bible.ca... .htm
Afterwards, get a hand on a world clock and get the time of the location in our time(Eastern standard) and the time of where these suppose Muslims celebrated.
Then you will see if the footage, that was only shown on 9/11, is authentic or not.
There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!
Originally posted by ADVISOR
There's not ONE piece of SOLID evidence that the destruction of the WTC's were terrorist attacks!!
Yes there is, it's the day in and of it's self. It happened that is evidence alone.
Originally posted by Ace McCloud
Well, here's what we have (simplest form).
US civilian airliners hijacked by Middle Eastern men (descriptions from actual victims on board) and crashed into buildings, which later collapsed, or as with 93 crashed by passengers attempting to stop them.
The men's names were connected with Al-Quaeda and they were terrorists.
Finally, Osama Bin Ladin claimed responsibility.
Again, what do you consider solid evidence.
Originally posted by Amaterasu
We are told that actual victims said this. None of them are alive to verify that it was them... Where is the EVIDENCE?
Again, this is what we are being told. No such names were on the passenger lists... And we have no footage of all these individuals getting on board. Where is the EVIDENCE?
Originally posted by tuccy
Originally posted by Amaterasu
We are told that actual victims said this. None of them are alive to verify that it was them... Where is the EVIDENCE?
This is like an argument that gas chambers are a myth because not a single person gassed in them didn't speak up after the war.
When someone's dead, you can hardly convince him to talk.
Again, this is what we are being told. No such names were on the passenger lists... And we have no footage of all these individuals getting on board. Where is the EVIDENCE?
Are you sure you aren't confusing passanger and victim lists?
The FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to subdue the passengers and crew. If they used gas they would have been affected themselves - unless they had masks. The story gets better all the time. They somehow got on board with masks, gas, guns, knives and electronic guidance systems, in spite of being searched, didn't show up on the airport security cameras, and were not on the passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic in rented cars outside the airport (last minute brushing up on the way there, about how to fly the things!) and then crashed the planes in breathtaking displays of skilled piloting. Just to make sure we knew who they were, their passports were conveniently found in spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the planes and occupants. So they got on board with false IDs but used their real passports?
Btw where is the evidence Titanic hit an iceberg? Or that the nuke was dropped on Hiroshima? Or that you yourself are real?