Archive of reports inferring most of UA93 was buried

Originally posted by hooper
As stated several times? One FBI spokesman said that once relative to a question about the wording on a wanted poster.

If you go to the most wanted page and look at OBL you will see that 9/11 is not listed as one of the things he is wanted for.

How many times must i state and prove it, there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with 9/11.





[edit on 23-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
As stated several times? One FBI spokesman said that once relative to a question about the wording on a wanted poster.

If you go to the most wanted page and look at OBL you will see that 9/11 is not listed as one of the things he is wanted for.

How many times must i state and prove it, there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with 9/11.
[edit on 23-2-2010 by REMISNE]

You mean if I go to the page THAT I LINKED TO in my post? Did you not read the whole page? And that is not some conspiracy, or as you would like to call it "debunker" site - it is the FBI website. They made a definitive statement with regard to 9/11 and indictments. Read it and weep.

You may "state" it until you are blue in the face, but you have not and can not "prove" anything. Unless you happen to be the US Attorney General. Are you the US Attorney General?

Originally posted by hooper
You mean if I go to the page THAT I LINKED TO in my post? Did you not read the whole page?

Yes i did read and even click on OBL and as stated he is not wanted for 9/11.

Also on the FBI most wanted page 9/11 is not listed for OBL.

As statated now for the last time. there is not enough evidnce to charge OBL with 9/11.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You mean if I go to the page THAT I LINKED TO in my post? Did you not read the whole page?

Yes i did read and even click on OBL and as stated he is not wanted for 9/11.

Also on the FBI most wanted page 9/11 is not listed for OBL.

As statated now for the last time. there is not enough evidnce to charge OBL with 9/11.

I assume then that you are the US Attorney General? As far as I know he is the only one that can make that definitive statement. You simply repeating it does not make it so.

Originally posted by thedman
Well here are pictures with sources. Were used in Moussaoui trial so have
stood up in court.

Where those photos on trial?

The ultimate error is assuming that just because photos was used in court that the court found the photos legit.

reply to post by hooper


I have no idea what you're getting at.

Btw,

If most of a plane had buried and no bodies were spotted above ground, where's the most likely place most of the passenger remains would be?


[edit on 23-2-2010 by ATH911]

Originally posted by hooper
I assume then that you are the US Attorney General? As far as I know he is the only one that can make that definitive statement. You simply repeating it does not make it so.

So show me evidence that the FBI and DOJ are wrong.

Show me on the FBI most wanted page that 9/11 is listed under OBL.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by thedman
Well here are pictures with sources. Were used in Moussaoui trial so have
stood up in court.

Where those photos on trial?

The ultimate error is assuming that just because photos was used in court that the court found the photos legit.

You better read up on some basics in law. In a "trial" you are trying or testing the evidence and seeing if supports or does not support the theory being put forth by the prosecution and/or the defense (noting that the defense is not obligated to submit any theory or evidence). You are not "tying" or testing the accused. We do not "put the question to them" any more, this is not the middle ages. These are not inquistions.

So yes, the evidence is tried.

reply to post by hooper


Did Moussaoui's defense attorneys put on any experts to test the legitimacy of those photos, or did they just assume those photos were legit?

reply to post by ATH911


I do not have the trial transcripts but they are available. You are more than welcome to read them. Get back to me.

Did you file a friend of the court brief in this case or any of the civil cases involving 9/11 advising the court of your findings relative to the lack of direct accountable physical evidence to support the prosecution or plaintiffs complaint?

Originally posted by hooper
As far as I know he is the only one that can make that definitive statement. You simply repeating it does not make it so.

So show me evidence that the FBI and DOJ are wrong.

Show me on the FBI most wanted page that 9/11 is listed under OBL.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
As far as I know he is the only one that can make that definitive statement. You simply repeating it does not make it so.

So show me evidence that the FBI and DOJ are wrong.

Show me on the FBI most wanted page that 9/11 is listed under OBL.

Sorry, your reading comprehension problems are your own.

I can't help you there. You keep making definitive statement FOR the FBI and the DOJ and you are not authorized to do that.

They state, on their website, that the crimes listed are sufficient for the purposes of apprehension and arrest, which, of course, is the purpose of publishing a "most wanted" list and that all the terrorist suspects on the list are subject to further indictment including 9/11.

End of story. Move on. You are wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
They state, on their website, that the crimes listed are sufficient for the purposes of apprehension and arrest, which, of course, is the purpose of publishing a "most wanted" list and that all the terrorist suspects on the list are subject to further indictment including 9/11.

Ok so you cannot show that 9/11 is listed under OBL. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
They state, on their website, that the crimes listed are sufficient for the purposes of apprehension and arrest, which, of course, is the purpose of publishing a "most wanted" list and that all the terrorist suspects on the list are subject to further indictment including 9/11.

Ok so you cannot show that 9/11 is listed under OBL. Thanks for playing.

Yeah, you're right. The FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, etc., etc, etc. all agree with you - OBL is completely and totally innocent, no connection whatsoever to 9/11. You got us. You're just way too clever.

reply to post by REMISNE

Ok so you cannot show that 9/11 is listed under OBL. Thanks for playing.

Childish, trivial, nonsense.

It says that all persons listed are subject to additional charges. OBL's page says he is wanted for additional charges.

These are wanted posters, not charge sheets.

Grow up for heavens sake.

reply to post by rnaa

9-11 woulda been at the TOP of the list.
And the planes with the Bin-Ladens woula landed in Gitmo.

reply to post by trueforger

9-11 woulda been at the TOP of the list.

No. He was wanted and on the list before 9/11. Priority is first crime first, not most infamous first.

Once a sufficiently solid case is established so warrants can be issued there is no need to keep piling on... until capture.

Originally posted by ATH911
reply to post by hooper

 

I have no idea what you're getting at.

Btw,

If most of a plane had buried and no bodies were spotted above ground, where's the most likely place most of the passenger remains would be?


[edit on 23-2-2010 by ATH911]

Interesting how hooper disappeared from this thread without answering several questions like the one above.

So hooper, I'm quite interested in hearing an answer... or should I assume you can't answer the questions?

NOTICE: MODERATOR ADVISORY

This is a reminder that courtesy is mandatory and steps are being taken to eliminate rude, disruptive behavior from our forums.

Members are advised to avoid such behavior and thereby avoid consequences that may include temporary suspension of posting privileges or permanent account termination.

Please stay on topic and avoid ANY commentary whatsoever, whether considered "insulting" or not, regarding the person or characteristics of any member. ANY such commentary is off topic and subject to warning and removal, so please, don't.

Direct responses to this advisory in this thread will be considered off topic and will be subject to warning and removal. Comments are welcome here:

##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS- FORUM REJUVENATION##

It is strongly recommended that members acquaint themselves with the forum rules before posting, because ignorance of them will not stand as an excuse for misconduct.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVISORY. STAY ON TOPIC.

Originally posted by hooper
Those are not "reports". They are quotes from newspaper articles. Nobody was filing a "report". Using that term lends an air of officially vetted information - there was no such thing.

So if no reports were ever filed about what happened to the plane at shanks, how do you know what happened there and what the "official" story is about what happened?

Or do you agree that there was never any official report or story about what happened to UA93?

And if so, why do you make any statements at all about what happened? Or is it that you're admitting in fact that you DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED?

C'mon hooper, you support the official narrative right? You claim a plane crashed into shanksville and believe it was UA93 right?

What evidence specifically do you base this BELIEF on? Which report/s and from whom, are you claiming supports what you believe to have happened?