Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where's the evidence?!?!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Ok all I want to know is where's the evidence that osama was behind 9/11. Like real evidence, not some granny video of a man in a turban. I really don't know who to beleive any more. It seems like both sides are lying. When we invaded Iraq they told us a bunch of lyes. I even remember a couple of people on this board asaying that the Iraqi people love us cause were giveing them there freedom?!?!?? What a load of horse #. If we would of never went over there the terrorist wouldn't of snuck in the country to start a civil war. The only reason there there is because they want to kill us. But really you all where is the evidence. Why do we believe the bull# that they tell us.




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
There is no real evidence. Only what the U.S. government tells us. They say it's Osama Bin Laden but do you really believe them?



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
There is no real evidence. Only what the U.S. government tells us. They say it's Osama Bin Laden but do you really believe them?


There has been # loads of threads about possible theories, but the most likely one is a CIA working with the terrorist. It would explain why all the warnings were ignored, also without inside help, Al Qieda (however you spell it) wouldn't been able to pull of something this big.

[edit on 15-8-2004 by infinite]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
the biggest "terrorist" attack in history and its all classified
wait another 50 years for the FOIA
then you will get sum bits of paper with text blacked out



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The supposed evidence is that Bin Laden confession tape which clearly shows a different man dressed as Osama.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
The supposed evidence is that Bin Laden confession tape which clearly shows a different man dressed as Osama.


Yea I wonder where they got that tape from
That was probably taken in someones basement in L.A



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by heelstone
The supposed evidence is that Bin Laden confession tape which clearly shows a different man dressed as Osama.


Yea I wonder where they got that tape from
That was probably taken in someones basement in L.A


Or beneath the Pentagon or at Area 51.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
Ok all I want to know is where's the evidence that osama was behind 9/11. Like real evidence, not some granny video of a man in a turban. I really don't know who to beleive any more. It seems like both sides are lying. When we invaded Iraq they told us a bunch of lyes. I even remember a couple of people on this board asaying that the Iraqi people love us cause were giveing them there freedom?!?!?? What a load of horse #. If we would of never went over there the terrorist wouldn't of snuck in the country to start a civil war. The only reason there there is because they want to kill us. But really you all where is the evidence. Why do we believe the bull# that they tell us.


All evidence leads back to the White House, my friend.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
They won't present real evidence because that's how covert operations work; they deliberately send inconsistent messages to confuse everyone involved. They want Arabs to think that Osama is a terrorist AND they want them to wonder if he's false-flag operative. If there is any real evidence you'll never see it because it would reveal our intelligence capabilities and strategies. After the strategic objectives are met then they'll create an official story of what happened. It'll be bogus, but so what. The only thing that matters is success. They don't care about the moral high ground.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Seems that the "evidence" is there?
If not, explain this one:

"Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism"
www.usatoday.com...

Excerpt:

"MADRID, Spain (AP) Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington."

If such "evidences" are available, how is that you guys haven't bothered to find them or see them? Seems that others can, that includes other nation's, as well?




regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Just Because Spain has indicted him doesn't show evidence.

How many people daily are being indicted by the courts although they are not guilty?

There is no real evidence of Osama bin Laden behind 9-11 except for that bogus tape that was played like 2 years ago and has disappeared off the face of the earth now.

When a crime of such magnitude like 9-11 happens, people will believe anything that is told to him. They will need the name of the person who was behind the crime just for a sigh of relief.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Illmatic67]



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'm interested to know just what exactly constitutes acceptable "evidence" to you guys.
Really, what would be good enough?

-B.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Here's a question for you Illmatic, when a person, or individual, or group is "indicted", is it not with "evidence"?
If not, explain how 'they' would be indicted? If there is no real evidence, then an "indictment" would be useless?


regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Let's take a trip into the past.

BOOM, 9-11 has happened.

The name Osama bin Laden was released like what, an hour after the buildings collapsed?

It just takes an hour for the government to know it was this man.

My memory might be hazy so the hour might be wrong, but I know it was the same day that name bin Laden was released that we "knew" it was him.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I'll ask again:

When a person, or individual, or group is "indicted", is it not with "evidence"?
If not, explain how 'they' would be indicted?
If there is no "real evidence", then an "indictment" would be useless?


regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Let's take a trip into the past.

BOOM, 9-11 has happened.

The name Osama bin Laden was released like what, an hour after the buildings collapsed?

It just takes an hour for the government to know it was this man.

My memory might be hazy so the hour might be wrong, but I know it was the same day that name bin Laden was released that we "knew" it was him.


1993 Bombing of WTC, Yussef Ramsi, known connections to Al Quaida, known associate of Osamma Bin Laden. The attack fails...8 years later another one sucessfuly destroys the WTC.

Your an idiot if you try to claim that Osamma wasnt on the governments radar leading up to the attack. He was well known to western inetlligence organizations.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
An indictment is issued based on evidence(s).

"An indictment is issued by a grand jury, which determines from evidence presented by a prosecutor that a crime was committed and the suspect should stand trial on the allegations."
www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov...



regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
An indictment is issued based on evidence(s).

"An indictment is issued by a grand jury, which determines from evidence presented by a prosecutor that a crime was committed and the suspect should stand trial on the allegations."
www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov...


Yes, and the jury determines whether or not the accused is guilty...it seems you have forgotten, innocent until proven guilty. Simply indicting someone doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime..this "evidence" will have to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is in fact guilty...



Sorry, hit wrong button.


[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Okay, I need tangilbe believable evidence that OBL acted alone. He alone planned and execute the WTC horror.
Did he do it or do they want us to think he did it?
For all we know, OBL, David Rockefeller, Bush Daddy and Prince Philip have dinner on a regular basis at Windsor Castle!

The last time an event prompted these kinds of questions was 11-22-63. We had the man who acted alone, who planned and executed the horror in Dallas. And he didn't do it.

Why are we sooooo ready to beleive our govt after 9/11 when we don't believe the govt coverup after the Kennedy assassination? If there was a conspiracy then to derail the country, WHY NOT NOW?

If anything, you would thing we would be less likely to believe what comes out of the officail mouth in Washington after 40 years of subterfuge.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
If anything, you would thing we would be less likely to believe what comes out of the officail mouth in Washington after 40 years of subterfuge.


I'm surprised people so easily have forgotten Vietnam, and continue to swallow everything "they" feed us.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join