FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11?

C

CrocodileDex

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Points
1
First of all, i'm not intending to start 9/11 conspiracy thread. I'm just passing some interesting info...
 
what? thats nuts. thats really crazy. i wouldnt deny he had nothing to do with september 11th. september 11th doesnt and shouldnt sit well with a lot of people. i actually saw something on the news about how he's not connected with the attacks. since he's basically a scapegoat who didnt do it, then who did it?
 
When a person goes on that list, he goes for one crime. If he commits subsequent crimes they just add "and others." It's a list of criminals, not an itemization of people's offenses. Stop buying into the nonsense.
 
Don't be such a party pooper, it's clear the FBI has blown this entire conspiracy by forgetting to update their globally read website.
 
One would have to ask what is the evidence that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 ?

is there any evidence at all i wonder ?

was Bin Laden behind 9/11 or is he just a scapegoat ?
 
In 61 BC, Julius Caesar's political career was in the dumps and he was heavily in debt. Not long after that, a Gaulish leader, Diviciacus, fled to Rome following a coup and asked the Romans to intervene and restore him to his former position of power. However, the Romans weren't interested; there was no enthusiasm for a war in Gaul.

Because his pleas for military intervention had failed, Diviciacus then started claiming that another people, the Helvetii, were about to invade Gaul. Once again, the Romans weren't interested.

Caesar, however, realised this was a chance for him to gain political power and make some money too. He started backing Diviciacus's claim, stating further that if the Helvetii overran Gaul, there would be an imminent threat to Italy. He played on the Roman's fears of the barbarians and convinced the Senate to send him to Gaul with an army for the purpose of protecting the Gauls from the Helvetii.

Over the next few years, Caesar's army killed over one million of the six million Gauls they were supposed to protect and pillaged Gaul of most of its gold. After his conquest of the Gauls, Caesar was both powerful and rich.

It's not that hard to substitute the names of some of today's politicians for that of Caesar's. You can substitute the names of some modern countries for that of Gaul. As for gold, just read "oil" and "gas".

Politicians have been lying to us since time began about who the enemy is, either by exaggerating the threat from existing enemies, or creating false ones. All they have to do is keep us afraid and we will let them do anything they want. This is never done in our interest.

Declan
 
Yet many wars have been fought against enemies who were not imagined, whose threat was not exaggerated. The point of the debate is which circumstance we are looking at now, and pointing out a 2000 year old government which deceived its populace doesn't mean you can just swap the names to prove the same thing occurred here.
 
Silly FBI considering they obviously masterminded the whole attack its just ridiculous that they would leave loose ends like this lying around for intrepid internet searchers to find. Well at least we got that sorted... Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 and was just claiming responsibility for added airtime. He's such an attention whore.
 
I agree. The war against Hitler is a prime example. However, I did not say in my piece that all wars fought were against imagined or exaggerated enemies.

I understand that.

I did not say anywhere in my piece that you could take any example from history and "just" replace the names. I used a specific example from history which I felt was analagous to the so-called "War on Terror". I think one can indeed swap the names in a meaningful way in the example I have given.

Kind regards,

Declan
 
Ok. But you are still wrong.

You have two ways of blaming Bush for 9/11. One is to say that he planned it. That would fit somewhat to your statement. That there really was no outside threat but that it was made up for political and personal gain. The problem is that Bush had just gained what he wanted before hand, so why attack his own country? He was still in the friendly period before the first budget. It doesn't match anything similiar to what we see today even though his popularity has gone downhill. So the reality is that we were attacked. Since we were attacked, your analogy falls completely apart.
 
1. http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html What the hell is the Wisdom Fund?

2. Prove to me 9/11 happaned at all? I think we went from 9/10 to 9/12 without 9/11 ever happening.

3. The attacks of 9/11 were not planned by Bush. There is evidence of 1: a hijacking & suicide plot and 2: of Islamic terrorism.
 
Did anyone ever explain why both the towers just collapsed into nothing like a demolition tower?
 
umm did you fill the 3 skyscapers with explosives? There is a complete absence of evidence of such. Speculation doesn't count.
 
In the case of Caesar, he didn't instigate the coup which ousted Diviciacus, nor did he instigate the migration of the Helvetii. However, he manipulated the existing situation and twisted it to suit his own ends.

I did not say that Bush (or his financial backers) orchestrated the 9/11 attack. The USA was indeed attacked... by Saudis. Yet Bush responded by attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, not Saudi Arabia.

The point of my piece was to take a parallel from ancient history where a politician took advantage of a situation to start a war purely for profit and power. I believe the analogy stands up.

Kind regards,

Declan
 
The Saudis that attacked us were based in Afganistan. Saddam should have been removed in 91
 
from the FBI website
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
He is wanted for being the leader of Al Qeida. It does not mention 9/11 specifically.
 
from the 9/11 report:

Three questions have arisen with respect to the departure of Saudi nationals from the United States in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

(1) Did any flights of Saudi nationals take place before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001? (2) Was there any political intervention to facilitate the departure of Saudi nationals? (3) Did the FBI screen Saudi nationals thoroughly before their departure?

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001.24 To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.25

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals. The issue came up in one of the many video teleconferences of the interagency group Clarke chaired, and Clarke said he approved of how the FBI was dealing with the matter when it came up for interagency discussion at his level. Clarke told us, "I asked the FBI, Dale Watson . . . to handle that, to check to see if that was all right with them, to see if they wanted access to any of these people, and to get back to me. And if they had no objections, it would be fine with me." Clarke added, "I have no recollection of clearing it with anybody at the White House."26

Although White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card remembered someone telling him about the Saudi request shortly after 9/11, he said he had not talked to the Saudis and did not ask anyone to do anything about it. The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.27

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.28 The Saudi government was advised of and agreed to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed.29The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.30

The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.31
 
Except that Bush did not gain profit financially or in terms of gaining power by way of war. Nor could he. In your example, Rome was not attacked. We were. Caeser benefitted directly. Bush didn't. Bad example.
 
Back
Top