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.

 

In the history of ATS has a truther ever changed his/her mind and decided Osama did it ???

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by common-sense
 


My opinion is Osama had nothing to do with 911 and he has never been charged for the crime and the FBI said they do not have any proof that he did 911.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by SuperViking
 


Clearly looking at your – points that’s the kind of answer I would expect.
It is very clear you are trolling.
Have a nice day.



me???

I have made no points...I asked a question



are you reffering to me or someone else in here....I am getting confussed



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by common-sense
 


My opinion is Osama had nothing to do with 911 and he has never been charged for the crime and the FBI said they do not have any proof that he did 911.


why does it have to be an "opinion" and not a "theory" ???



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
He said he was going to do an attack and even said how the
deed would be done.
Unless it wasn't Osama but some figment of a set up.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
He said he was going to do an attack and even said how the
deed would be done.
Unless it wasn't Osama but some figment of a set up.



yes...he did declare war on the United States...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
What? So because they didn't rewrite the file on him and didn't change what he was initially wanted for, it's a conspiracy?

I never stated that, you did.

I merely pointed out that OBL is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBI website.


Originally posted by SuperViking
Umm...why should they update their webpage? Can you seriously tell us why?

You're kidding, right? You're asking why a Federal Agency should not have to update its webpages, based on new information? That's one of the silliest statements that I have read this past week.

Seriously, you have no idea at all about webpage protocols and professionalism.


Originally posted by SuperViking
That leap is laughable in nature, and leaps like that are why "truthers" are a laughingstock of educated and reasonable society.

You're supposed to work for the NSA, yet you can't understand why the FBI should maintain up-to-date webpages. I can see who does and doesn't belong to an 'educated society'.


Originally posted by SuperViking
This is why you're laughed at.

Look in the mirror, SuperViking.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by SuperViking
What? So because they didn't rewrite the file on him and didn't change what he was initially wanted for, it's a conspiracy?

I never stated that, you did.

I merely pointed out that OBL is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBI website.


You "merely" pointed it out?
Really? Why did you persist in arguing when it was explained why to you?



Originally posted by SuperViking
Umm...why should they update their webpage? Can you seriously tell us why?

You're kidding, right? You're asking why a Federal Agency should not have to update its webpages, based on new information? That's one of the silliest statements that I have read this past week.


No really- why? Why, if someone is already wanted and considered extremely dangerous, should they update it any more than they did, to say he was wanted for other terrorist acts? Because conspiracy idiots need it? No, that's not even why, because they'd find a way to explain that away, too. We both know that


Seriously, you have no idea at all about webpage protocols and professionalism.






Originally posted by SuperViking
That leap is laughable in nature, and leaps like that are why "truthers" are a laughingstock of educated and reasonable society.

You're supposed to work for the NSA, yet you can't understand why the FBI should maintain up-to-date webpages. I can see who does and doesn't belong to an 'educated society'.


What are you, a webpage designer? Who cares? People in the field like to deal with REAL things and REAL issues. Not placating conspiracy morons.



Originally posted by SuperViking
This is why you're laughed at.

Look in the mirror, SuperViking.


Just did, saw me laughing at you. Seriously- you're not respected by educated society, this is why. Insulting real people won't help that.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
You "merely" pointed it out?
Really? Why did you persist in arguing when it was explained why to you?

I'm not arguing anything with you, SuperViking.

The fact is that OBL is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11. You can see this by checking his file on the FBI website.

Whichever way you try and spin it, it won't change that fact.

Keep trying though...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


He's wanted for various terrorist acts, in addition to his first ones that are mentioned. Further, the FBI's jurisdiction is not overseas. Lastly, even if he was you wouldn't accept it as proof of his culpability.

What is it, exactly, you don't understand?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
He's wanted for various terrorist acts, in addition to his first ones that are mentioned.

None of those acts are listed as 9/11. What's your point?



Further, the FBI's jurisdiction is not overseas.

So...? That still doesn't change the fact that they don't want him for 9/11.



Lastly, even if he was you wouldn't accept it as proof of his culpability.

Welcome to ATS, SuperViking. The place where people with inferior debating skills are shot down in flames.

You don't know me and you have absolutely no idea what I might or might not accept as evidence or proof. Put your crystal ball away, as it's useless for you to try and predict what I might or might not do.

Didn't they teach you how to debate or get a read on people in the NSA? What's your role in the NSA?

[edit on 4-11-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by SuperViking
He's wanted for various terrorist acts, in addition to his first ones that are mentioned.

None of those acts are listed as 9/11. What's your point?


None of them are listed as anything in particular- what's YOUR point? That omitting the nature of the attacks means it can't be 9/11? You're seriously going with that?




Further, the FBI's jurisdiction is not overseas.

So...? That still doesn't change the fact that they don't want him for 9/11.


The FBI wouldn't get him.




Lastly, even if he was you wouldn't accept it as proof of his culpability.

Welcome to ATS, SuperViking. The place where people with inferior debating skills are shot down in flames.

I know, but you keep posting. That's what I don't get.


You don't know me and you have absolutely no idea what I might or might not accept as evidence or proof. Put your crystal ball away, as it's useless for you to try and predict what I might or might not do.


Oh, okay, so you're saying if only OBL was on the Most Wanted List and it specifically spelled out that it was for 9/11 you'd be convinced. Okay. No one reading that on either side of the debate so don't even go that route.


Didn't they teach you how to debate or get a read on people in the NSA? What's your role in the NSA?


I'm an intel analyst and I'm DAMN good at it.

What job is it that you hold that gives you special information about such things?

Oh...that's what I thought.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
None of them are listed as anything in particular- what's YOUR point?

The point is, that OBL is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11. It's not mentioned on the webpage.



I'm an intel analyst and I'm DAMN good at it.

I've got to wonder why an Intel Analyst for the NSA has to imagine something on a webpage that is clearly not there.

Read the webpage as many times as you like, it is not mentioned that OBL is wanted by the FBI for 9/11.

Anyway, I know when to jump off a merry-go-round. I know the MODs are on top of these threads and there's no point for me to repeatedly post the same reply to you. Here, read it one last time and apply your critical thinking intel skills to this statement: The FBI website does not list that OBL is wanted for the 9/11 attacks.

You can have the last words to try and twist the facts to suit your story. Go ahead, apply the Intel spin...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Many terrorist attacks perpetrated by OBL aren't mentioned, only the initial ones. What aren't you getting?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezzajw, don’t waste your time on Superviking he could care less about the truth.
Don’t you see what he is doing he is baiting you, you already fell in his trap now ignore him. You clearly are not talking to an adult, look at all his past posts he has done nothing but ridiculed everyone.

He makes statement with out posting sources he is not debating you he is ridiculing you.
I assume this is his game of ( trying to get you band!)




ATS points? You mean the points you get for coming up with retarded theories and being overly paranoid? No, I don't have many of those. Since they take points for inserting realism into these half-baked delusional theories, I don't have very many.

I like it that way.





You "merely" pointed it out?
Really? Why did you persist in arguing when it was explained why to you?




No really- why? Why, if someone is already wanted and considered extremely dangerous, should they update it any more than they did, to say he was wanted for other terrorist acts? Because conspiracy idiots need it? No, that's not even why, because they'd find a way to explain that away, too. We both know that





What are you, a webpage designer? Who cares? People in the field like to deal with REAL things and REAL issues. Not placating conspiracy morons.





Just did, saw me laughing at you. Seriously- you're not respected by educated society, this is why. Insulting real people won't help that.




The FBI wouldn't get him.





Lastly, even if he was you wouldn't accept it as proof of his culpability.




Welcome to ATS, SuperViking. The place where people with inferior debating skills are shot down in flames.




I know, but you keep posting. That's what I don't get.





I'm an intel analyst and I'm DAMN good at it.

What job is it that you hold that gives you special information about such things?

Oh...that's what I thought.


These are superviking comments on this page
Where is he debating you ?
Nothing but rants and ridicule and baiting for a fight.

IGNORE HIM!

You are a good debater, don’t waste your talent on this.






[edit on 11/4/2008 by cashlink]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by common-sense
 


Hey I missed this one.

Now all you non believers can watch, like we had to watch this
guy for months and months before 911.
Some one had a campaign going on.
Basically Osama and trouble in the middle east was to bring us
closer to Russia and invade their marketplace.
The movement all started with Clinton.
Clinton got the promise to get out of impeachment if he bombed
Osama... any one bomb, bomb....and he did finally and was not
impeached.
Bush was no problem and captured the moment Osama set up.
To go to war against the bad radical Islamic state of Afghanistan.
For some other over powering reason no doubt.

As Bush stood on the rubble of what was once the WTC he announced
going after Afghanistan was the answer to 9/11/01

So there you have it... 911... it was Afghanistan.. from the president.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperViking
Umm...why should they update their webpage? Can you seriously tell us why?



I have to update my virus definitions daily on the internet. You tell me.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

They already have him listed as wanted for various terrorist actions. Do they need to tick off every one, as they occur? Why? Just so people won't think there was a government conspiracy for the 9/11 attacks? If the conspiracy was as amazingly effective as those people claim, how would the FBI's most wanted webpage being in on it change anything?

The logic makes no sense whatsoever.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join