Creative Speculation

OnTheOtherHand

(7,621 posts)

12. that's irrelevant to what you claimed

Reply to gyroscope (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 03:38 PM

Jan 2012

Here it is, once again, for easy reference:

the FBI says they never had enough evidence to pin 9/11 on bin laden or even indict him for it.

It isn't rationally possible to get from "the poster... says nothing about 9/11" to a claim about what the FBI says about being able to indict bin Laden. Not that the FBI does indictments, anyway.

It's true that bin Laden was never indicted in the 9/11 attacks. As 911myths.com points out, he wasn't indicted in the Cole attack, either. Does that mean that the FBI didn't have enough evidence to indict bin Laden for the Cole attack? No, it doesn't mean that. You might be able to make that case, but you can't infer the conclusion from the absence of an indictment.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet and CIA of 9/11 Cover-Up [View all] gyroscope Jan 2012 OP

The information was shared with the FBI noise Jan 2012 #1

Not according to Clarke gyroscope Jan 2012 #2

So, now you believe... William Seger Jan 2012 #3

I dont know if you could call them hijackers gyroscope Jan 2012 #4

That link to the FBI Most Wanted Page for bin Laden: could you tell me what this means? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5

You would have to ask those organzations gyroscope Jan 2012 #7

"the FBI says..." OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #6

The poster makes specific mention gyroscope Jan 2012 #8

that's irrelevant to what you claimed OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #12

"Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #13

That would be in reference to other smaller attacks gyroscope Jan 2012 #17

So the USS Cole attack is not a significant attack and did not involve American casualties? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #18

That's not what I said gyroscope Jan 2012 #21

A United States battleship attacked in the Persian Gulf Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #23

Why do you think the FBI wanted poster fails to mention 9/11 at all? gyroscope Jan 2012 #24

It doesn't mention a lot of Al Qaeda attacks. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #26

Was bin Laden ever indicted for 9/11? gyroscope Jan 2012 #28

Your answer inside. Which Al Qaeda attacks, small or large, involved airplanes, gyroscope? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #30

Did the FBI say that? gyroscope Jan 2012 #33

Your answer inside. You didn't answer mine. Which AQ attacks, small or great, involved airplanes? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #41

I agree that gyroscope should step up and answer questions OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #46

Ah, yes, you've got it AND the quote I was looking for originally, the "for example" one. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #47

Why didn't the FBI indict bin laden? gyroscope Jan 2012 #56

I have answered that question already. You have not answered mine. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #58

Irrelevant to the discussion gyroscope Jan 2012 #64

I see. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #67

and here's another question: why do you think you know this? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #60

So there would be no confusion about who was responsible gyroscope Jan 2012 #65

in other words, you've got nothing OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #68

"a new independent investigation to answer" what question? William Seger Jan 2012 #9

I doubt the official story gyroscope Jan 2012 #10

You think Clarke doubts ... William Seger Jan 2012 #11

I don't presume to know what he thinks in that regard gyroscope Jan 2012 #14

Why is that an issue ... William Seger Jan 2012 #15

Who said they weren't? gyroscope Jan 2012 #16

You were... William Seger Jan 2012 #19

I never claimed no plane crashed into the Pentagon gyroscope Jan 2012 #22

your claim zappaman Jan 2012 #25

What part do you not understand? gyroscope Jan 2012 #27

so you have no idea what struck the pentagon? zappaman Jan 2012 #29

do you not consider this clear evidence? zappaman Jan 2012 #31

From your link gyroscope Jan 2012 #32

We'd know it was AA77 ... William Seger Jan 2012 #34

How does Sunder know how large the explosions were? gyroscope Jan 2012 #37

His comment was based on how large the explosion would need to be William Seger Jan 2012 #40

You guys don't read the paper do you? gyroscope Jan 2012 #43

You are a prime example... William Seger Jan 2012 #44

"The explosions weren't loud enough" gyroscope Jan 2012 #48

which raises the question: where have you been? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49

Is there such a thing as a silent explosion? gyroscope Jan 2012 #50

why do you continue to misrepresent what we all can read? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51

According to Sunder gyroscope Jan 2012 #52

Is English not your primary language? zappaman Jan 2012 #53

Sunder is a clown who belongs in a circus act. gyroscope Jan 2012 #54

No difficluties with English here. zappaman Jan 2012 #55

Comedy gold gyroscope Jan 2012 #57

"according to Sunder, the explosions were silent which is why no one could hear them on 9/11." zappaman Jan 2012 #59

speaking of which OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61

good point on how the "discussion" started zappaman Jan 2012 #62

So what is Sunder saying? gyroscope Jan 2012 #63

can you show us what you don't understand? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #66

"some witnesses say it was a large airliner" zappaman Jan 2012 #36

You did claim it couldn't be AA77 William Seger Jan 2012 #35

Where did I say that? gyroscope Jan 2012 #38

"But a look at the flight data recorder information provided by the NTSB..." William Seger Jan 2012 #39

Again gyroscope Jan 2012 #42

Clearly, that is NOT "simply" what you did in the quotes I posted William Seger Jan 2012 #45

I thought that Clarke was notified Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2012 #20