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.

 

To all the people that say that Osama Bin Laden isn't on the FBIs most wanted...

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
1) My point, which I proved, was the thing many people on the board have tried to use as an arguement was false. That the FBI doesn't even have him on their most wanted list.

2) It doesn't proove he's not being wanted for 9/11.

Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

typically that means he's suspect in too many terrorist activites to list. The fact that 9/11 wasn't named does not proove that he isnt being wanted for it.


Do you really believe that the FBI would not have put 911 in his wanted list if they had any shred of evidence connecting Bin Laden to it?

Somehow they'd just look at the list and go 'hmm... no point in putting 911 there I guess.'?




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I took a screen capture of the FBI's most wanted page for Usama/Osama in 2006. At that time the most recent update on Osama's page was in November 2001, and before then the original post of June 1999 when Bin Laden first showed up as most wanted on the FBI site. Apparently they have updated the page as of 2006 and removed the dates from the bottom of the page, and despite the fact that the "FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable," it's been 6 years, Osama is still not wanted in connection with 9/11, even on the FBI's own webpage. It would be bad business to kill Osama and destroy Al-Qaida. What excuse for borrowing millions from the international bankers would we have then?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I have been reading this website for a while and I decided to post. So go easy on me


It seems like to me that this is a chronological issue with the FBI.

Let me explain. When Bin Laden was first put on the "Most Wanted" list it was for the Embassy Bombings. This happened BEFORE the attacks on 9/11, so the first offence is what is listed as the cause for being on the most wanted list. Simple really.

If I recall correctly another example of this would be a wanted person like Ted Bundy. He was on the most wanted list for escaping from prison, even though he had killed those girls in Florida AFTER his escape, and his dental 'bitemarks" were an exact match along with eyewitness descriptions.

He was still wanted for "escape" FIRST on the FBI most wanted list. Once he was captured he was tried for ALL the crimes he committed.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
is the name 'Usama' a failure of intelligence on the part of the feds or the media? Perhaps this is a MIHOP situation..



Because there is no universally accepted standard in the West for transliterating Arabic words and names into English, bin Laden's name is transliterated in many ways. The version often used by most English-language mass media is Osama bin Laden. Most American government agencies, including the FBI and CIA, use either Usama bin Laden or Usama bin Ladin, both of which are often abbreviated to UBL. Less common renderings include Ussamah Bin Ladin and Oussama Ben Laden (French-language mass media). The latter part of the name can also be found as Binladen or Binladin.

wiki

That's where they get "UBL" from.
I guess they think its cool spelling it with
a "U" instead of an "O" like the media.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I hear alot of people citing that the FBI no longer has Osama Bin Laden as a most wanted terrorist


You hear alot of people saying that? Who? What's their names? If it's online, can you give quotes? After all, isn't that what you people always want from us? Proof? Do you know that goes both ways? Give some quotes and the people who said them, or this will be written off as you misunderstanding words, or flat out twisting words to fit your post.


Originally posted by WolfofWar
citing there wasn't enough evidence against him.


Show me evidence against HIM. I want to see it. What do ya got?


Originally posted by WolfofWar
It's often a classic rebuttle of proof of a 9/11 conspiracy


"Ya, bush planned 9/11 LOLZ!! U conspiracy nuts think he is sOooOooO DUMB but then u say bush planned 9/11 attacks HAHAHHAHA LOLLLL!!!"

I always thought that was a classic rebuttle from "your side".


Originally posted by WolfofWar
and I just wanted to get this all out of the way. Here he is, on the most wanted list, on the top spot.

Most Wanted Terrorists

And even on the most wanted fugitives list:

Most Wanted Fugitives


Oh, wow. Good job!

Here are NORAD drills at the same time on the same day for the exact same event as the real one:

NORAD Drills On 9/11

And here's Operation Able Danger

Able Danger

How about Put Options?

Put Options


Originally posted by WolfofWar
Just to bring that to everybodies attention, so we don't have to hear it presented as "evidence" anymore. Great, thanks.


What's funny is you say "Great, thanks" as if you just did something.

It was brought to everybody's attention long ago. I don't know where you were.

It hasn't ever been presented as evidence because nobody has claimed he wasn't on the FBI's most wanted list.

You show me where it says attacks on federal and/or military buildings and financial buildings killing 3,000 people INSIDE the United States using jet airliners on September 11th, 2001, and I'll withdraw what I'm saying here.

So, before you attempt to debunk a claim, know what the claim is. It's pretty embarrassing when you get it wrong.

The mountains of evidence, reasonable doubt, and physics are all on the side of the "alternative theory" to 9/11. Perhaps if you didn't take propaganda force fed and read things from time to time, you'd see it too.

The burden of proof is on you. And you failed.

Okie-Dokie?

Great, thanks.

[edit on 7/1/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
is the name 'Usama' a failure of intelligence on the part of the feds or the media? Perhaps this is a MIHOP situation..

Or, if you consider all those threads about "WTC7 was rigged to blow," "Bush ignored the warnings about the attack"...

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Here are NORAD drills at the same time on the same day for the exact same event as the real one:
NORAD Drills On 9/11
And here's Operation Able Danger
Able Danger
How about Put Options?
Put Options

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Just to bring that to everybodies attention, so we don't have to hear it presented as "evidence" anymore. Great, thanks.

,,,etc, etc, ad nauseum, then may they're actually trying to tell the truth, but messed up on the emphasis in the similarities of the name...Maybe they really meant "USAma bin Laden".



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Err yeah everyone knows that Bin Laden is on the FBI wanted list. I've never heard anyone deny it, because all it takes them is one check on the site and they know it.

I don't even know where you got that from? What's the point of this thread?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Debunking something no one ever claimed? Pretty embarrassing thread if you ask me...

Anyway, the FBI admitted themselves that they don't have hard proof to connect UBL to 911.



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.”


from here

it's really that simple

peace,
mr.jones



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
What a bunch of nonsense!! Here is the only way to resolve this :

WHAT specifically is Osama ( or Usama ) Bin Laden wanted for ?

It plainly says that it is OUTSIDE the USA, and that means that it has nothing to do with 9-11.

There is no proof linking Osama to 9-11. The video was proven a hoax long ago and is obviously not Bin Laden, to any observer with any sense of judgement. Bin Laden denied being a part of it, in fact.

9-11 was obviously an inside job and if any ' terrorists ' were involved it was as convenient patsies and fall guys for the real culprits: The Cheney/PNAC Neocon fascists making their move for global domination and corporate rule of elected officials as the norm.

Bin Laden was a CIA asset in the days of the Afghan-Russian wars of the past. He met with the CIA station chief in a hospital while being hunted by the USA!! He is not hunted and never was; he is a part of the plan and always was. They pin the blame on him, with no evidence, and the gullible Americans who cannot comprehend real evil in the human mind and soul keep on beliving the lies and incredible fairy tales of the Bush cabal despite massive evidence to the contrary.

The defenders of the official story have to stretch the very bounds of reason to cling to the sinking ship of denying the obvious: Those who profited from the act, were the cause of the act, simple. Vast billions, trillions, dumped into a black hole and never seen again; no explanations, no excuses, just stay quiet and wave the flag, right? Sickening, absolutely sickening that a rational human being can look at the evidence in this case and not see the obvious. It is WILLFUL ignorance and that is the worst kind of all.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
I guess he had nothing to do with it, or they can't prove that he did.

That would probably be the most likely purported reason; since if they knew that he had nothing to do with it (which they probably do), I doubt that would stop them from pinning it on him if they thought they could get away with it.

This is the government that may have killed 2000 innocent Americans to control the ignorant masses through patriotism. 9/11 was just the first step in the plan; it was the excuse they needed to pass all the laws that would a) give Bush the opprotunity to freeze the democratic process and become a dictator, and b) prepare them to take political prisoners and deal with a rebellion.

I'm not saying that I positively believe this to be the case, but all things considered... it makes sense.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
The whole "Attack on a federal facility" is for the attacks on U.S. embassies. Even though the other charges clearly state outside of the U.S., they would not do it with the attack on a federal facility charge. The ground that any US embassy is on is considered American soil and thus the language of the actual charge.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by Tahlen

He may be on both those most wanted lists, but take a look at what he is wanted for. Any mention of 9/11 there? Thank you for proving the point of him not being wanted for 9/11.


1) My point, which I proved, was the thing many people on the board have tried to use as an arguement was false. That the FBI doesn't even have him on their most wanted list.

2) It doesn't proove he's not being wanted for 9/11.

Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

typically that means he's suspect in too many terrorist activites to list. The fact that 9/11 wasn't named does not proove that he isnt being wanted for it.



I think that 9/11 being the most horrific "terrorist" act on US soil would constitute it being listed over the main activities named on the site. He may be suspect to many terrorist activities throughout the world, but why not list the worst atrocity he has committed? The two points you have stated may very well be true. On the other hand, regarding point 2, the way the media twists information in the US it would be easy to pin a man for all these crimes without him here to defend himself. I'm not saying he has not constituted any crimes, but who knows. Even still, the fact of the matter is any information I have seen regarding him proclaiming he is the person behind 9/11 has not been brought forward; if it has it was not him in the video.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
I have been reading this website for a while and I decided to post. So go easy on me


It seems like to me that this is a chronological issue with the FBI.

Let me explain. When Bin Laden was first put on the "Most Wanted" list it was for the Embassy Bombings. This happened BEFORE the attacks on 9/11, so the first offence is what is listed as the cause for being on the most wanted list. Simple really.

If I recall correctly another example of this would be a wanted person like Ted Bundy. He was on the most wanted list for escaping from prison, even though he had killed those girls in Florida AFTER his escape, and his dental 'bitemarks" were an exact match along with eyewitness descriptions.

He was still wanted for "escape" FIRST on the FBI most wanted list. Once he was captured he was tried for ALL the crimes he committed.


I agree with your points to an extent. I have to say that the FBI having the ability to charge a person with crimes, after evidence has been gathered should bring forth the charge placed upon him by everyone. If there were enough evidence to put this on him than why not update it? How long has it been since 9/11? Enough to gather evidence and place the burden of the crime on the person responsible? It has been almost 6 six years and the site has not been updated. This does not make any sense at all.




[edit on 2-7-2007 by Tahlen]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Let's not forget, folks...most of the time the simplest explanation is the best one.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Let's not forget, folks...most of the time the simplest explanation is the best one.


What do you mean by that? It's not rocket science to conclude the FBI has no proof Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the 9/11/01 attacks if they don't publish those charges against him.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I've always wondered why the FBI site calls him Usama but media and the majority of the people know him as Osama.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Let's not forget, folks...most of the time the simplest explanation is the best one.


What do you mean by that? It's not rocket science to conclude the FBI has no proof Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the 9/11/01 attacks if they don't publish those charges against him.


Indeed, Frith. But one might think it was. A wanted poster needn't require proof either...just enough of a hunch to issue a warrent for arrest. Remember, too, that a serious number of folk think that Saddam had a hand in it as well.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomThought
I've always wondered why the FBI site calls him Usama but media and the majority of the people know him as Osama.


I don't know...why do people say Muhammed instead Mohammed?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
First of all... anyone that says he was a CIA informant... please provide the proof. Not 25 connect the dots with speculation... PROOF!


It's pretty much common knowledge that the united states funded and supplied the mujahideen during the 80's to aid them in a fight against the communist russians.

Pick up a book man!




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join