WikiLeaks: FBI hunts the 9/11 gang that got away

reply to post by mr-lizard


No, but the whole story about Al Quaida attacking the towers is made up though.

Back on topic, I feel Wikileaks is BS. First of all, it didn't release anything really interesting, quite like Obama's campaign: lots of promises but short on real substance. I used to trust the website, but this peak is highly suspicious. I call BS now, and it's my first time with wikileaks. We are still waoting that mega BoA leak...

Originally posted by spacedonk
You'd think they would be fairly high in the top ten most wanted list....

Not at all, did you read the article?

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Soshh

 

Obviously the "documents" aren't so secret are they?

They have been public knowledge for how long? Considering that it isn't standard practice by any stretch of the imagination and they refuse to comment on it, I don't see why you would think that is it suspicious that the FBI wouldn't suddenly decide to post all kinds of details up on their website, other than perhaps their names and placement on a list of 300 wanted individuals. Unless you are absolutely desperate to push the conspiracy, of course! That wouldn't be the case, would it?

frankly i want to know more about what the FBI was doing with hani hanjour and his buddy when they were hanging out with the two hijackers in california earlier....

reply to post by Soshh


I don't see any documents at all, actually. I see a bunch of typing on the internet.

Also, the FBI has admitted they have no evidence linking Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. But of course I wouldn't expect you to know that, since you seem like an extremely narrow minded person so far.

And why wouldn't they post details? Apparently they're on a "manhunt"
They surely could use help, right? That is of course if these people even exist...

Edit: And they aren't on the FBI site at all. Not even in a list of "300 individuals"
I can't find any record of these guys.

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Soshh

 

I don't see any documents at all, actually. I see a bunch of typing on the internet.

What would you expect a document on the internet to look like? I'm very surprised that you missed them, well at least a little bit surprised, considering.

Also, the FBI has admitted they have no evidence linking Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. But of course I wouldn't expect you to know that, since you seem like an extremely narrow minded person so far.

I'm very hurt!

And why wouldn't they post details? Apparently they're on a "manhunt"

They surely could use help, right? That is of course if these people even exist...

Because when you're on a manhunt, people you're looking for tend to know that you're looking for them and it isn't a good idea to let them know very much more than that.

reply to post by Soshh


Hmm I don't know, a photo copy of an original document maybe? Not that a document can't be faked, but I mean the typing had to come from somewhere, no? I could sit on the internet and type whatever I want and claim it's from the FBI, it doesn't mean it is. What I don't understand is why you insist on defending a ghost. There's absolutely no evidence ANYWHERE supporting your claim. But go ahead and believe Julian Assange who has no credibility whatsoever

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Soshh

 

Hmm I don't know, a photo copy of an original document maybe? Not that a document can't be faked, but I mean the typing had to come from somewhere, no? I could sit on the internet and type whatever I want and claim it's from the FBI, it doesn't mean it is. What I don't understand is why you insist on defending a ghost. There's absolutely no evidence ANYWHERE supporting your claim. But go ahead and believe Julian Assange who has no credibility whatsoever

Seeing as the cables are all sourced from SIPRNET, it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect a photocopy of the original documents, if such a thing could ever be provided at all. As I said, it smacks of desperation. I have an open mind on the matter, as there is no concrete evidence either way. Is that article linked by you on the first page something that you would consider concrete evidence?

I'm not a fan of Julian Assange, at all, but at the very least he has infinitely more credibility than you, I'll give him that much!

reply to post by Soshh


Hmmm...well seeing as they censor and delete cables I find your notion of his credibility absurd. I never claimed to have credibility, I just asked why you insist on defending something that there is no proof of, and you still have managed to avoid that question.

And no, it's not "concrete evidence," how can you expect there to be concrete evidence of ANY government ploy? But that's as close to the truth as you'll get.

Defend your WikiLeaks sir, but it's you who's being duped, not I

Edit: It also appears Assange may have used Limewire or other P2P programs to seek information himself. Don't give him the credit of siphoning from SIPRNet just yet...lol..

He's a disinfo agent in this # for the money. He's a conman. He uses truths, and edits in his own lies to make it hard to distinguish between the two. But like I said believe what you wish.

The company, which has done investigative searches on behalf of U.S. agencies including the FBI, said it discovered that computers in Sweden were trolling through hard drives accessed from popular peer-to-peer networks such as LimeWire and Kazaa. The same information obtained in those searches later appeared on WikiLeaks, Boback said.

Buttttttttt I'm done here. Peace

reply to post by apodictic


You need to read a little more carefully. Just because I’m challenging your side of the argument it does not necessarily mean that I’m defending Wikileaks, it’s not “my Wikileaks” and I’m not defending Assange either. I can’t have been “duped” because I haven’t been swayed either way. If you could be bothered to read through my posts on the subject matter (I wouldn’t be either) then you’d see that my opinion on Wikileaks is ambiguous because like I said, there’s no concrete evidence either way and I refuse to be swayed by the conspiracy theories coming out of both camps.

If it isn't absolutely incontrovertible evidence then no-one is able to determine whether it is any closer to the truth than something that contradicts it, until real evidence is provided. Considering that you’re sitting in one of those camps without incontrovertible evidence as you freely admit, there is every possibility that you could be proven wrong at some stage and with that in mind, the only one of us with a chance of being “duped” is you.

It seems the easiest way to solve two arguments is to find out wether the allegations aout these guys is true?

Also as integral members of the 9/11 terrorists(allegedly) why is there no big bounty on their heads like Osama? Find that odd too.

IS THIS A CONSPIRACY DISCUSSION FORUM OR NOT?

WH AT T H E F U C KK?

You are all talking about weather...

solar storms...

polar shifts... etc etc etc

you can solve the 9/11 conundrum- definitively.

Look the FBI are allegedly hunting these guys but they have no media presence and no bounty! are they real?!?...