FBI says, "No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden 9/11", so who did it?

Originally posted by stevegmu
Could be because he claimed he was responsible?
Who said there was no evidence? Have you seen his FBI file? No evidence and no hard evidence are similar, but not the same.

LOL evidence is evidence. You don't need 'hard' evidence to convict someone, murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

And as for him claiming responsibility, well obviously the FBI don't take that very seriously do they? I mean what is hard evidence if not a personal admission?

It's obvious the FBI know that the Bin Laden video was a fake, otherwise that would be their 'hard evidence'. Unless for some reason they're using an unrealistic standard of what is 'evidence'.

Originally posted by lunarminer
I have seen at least three different videos in which Osama takes credit for 9/11.

I bet you didn't see the three statements after 9/11 of him DENYING anything to do with 9/11?

September 16, 2001: Bin Laden, in Statement Read on Al Jazeera, Denies Involvement in 9/11 Attacks

September 28, 2001: Bin Laden Again Denies Involvement in 9/11 Attacks

December 26, 2001: Bin Laden Again Denies 9/11 Involvement

www.historycommons.org...

Hmm, which to believe. Did he or didn't he do it? Well since most of us know that 9/11 was an inside job and the FBI has no hard evidence to indict him, I'd say he didn't do it.

Originally posted by lunarminer
Osama threatened the US with additional attacks and a "Storm of aircraft", a few days after 9/11. the suicide tapes left behind by the highjackers very clearly state that they are part of al-Qaeda.

All alleged tapes.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by stevegmu
Could be because he claimed he was responsible?
Who said there was no evidence? Have you seen his FBI file? No evidence and no hard evidence are similar, but not the same.

LOL evidence is evidence. You don't need 'hard' evidence to convict someone, murderers are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

And as for him claiming responsibility, well obviously the FBI don't take that very seriously do they? I mean what is hard evidence if not a personal admission?

It's obvious the FBI know that the Bin Laden video was a fake, otherwise that would be their 'hard evidence'. Unless for some reason they're using an unrealistic standard of what is 'evidence'.

In the intelligence community, 'hard evidence' is fingerprints, pictures, video, primary documents, and the like. If his confession were made in person, while hooked up to a polygraph, it would be considered hard evidence.

reply to post by stevegmu


Again so what?

Do you need 'hard evidence' to convict Bin Laden or just regular evidence?

Or even just circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence

Evidence which may allow a trial judge or jury to deduce or logically infer a certain fact from other established facts, which have been proven.

A presumption of fact.

In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness (known as direct evidence). And yet that evidence may be essential to completely prove a case.

In these instances, the lawyer will complete the evidence by providing the judge or juror with evidence of circumstances from which a juror or judge can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly; it is proven by the evidence of the circumstances; hence, "circumstantial" evidence.

Fingerprints are an example of circumstantial evidence: while there may be no witness to a person’s presence in a certain place, or contact with a certain object, the scientific evidence of someone’s fingerprints is persuasive proof of a person’s presence or contact with an object on which the fingerprint was found.

www.duhaime.org...

Note it says fingerprints are circumstantial, not hard evidence. So was your definition of 'hard' evidence a guess?

Don't you think a video of admission would be enough to convict someone? It obviously would be.
So why are they claiming they cannot convict due to not having any 'hard' evidence? I think anyone with a little intelligence can see they are simply trying to bluff their way out of admitting Bin laden did NOT have anything to do with 911.

And 'hard evidence' is not even a legal term.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by ANOK]