FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11

rlb21079 · May 27, 2003

Quote from ges:

They are everywhere. Some people will believe anything...the wackier it is, it seems, the more eager they are to swallow the lies whole.

I actually know people who really believe that OJ Simpson was innocent. If you can believe that, in the face of the evidence (overwhelming as an adjective doesn't do justice to the evidence in that case), then you are gullible enough to believe anything.

Being stupid helps, but it's not all about stupidity.

g

PS: Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Sorry pal, the fact of the matter is OJ was found innocent. He is, whether he killed or didn't kill, inncoent and it's a matter of public record.

KymarFye · May 27, 2003

Quote from rlb21079:

Sorry pal, the fact of the matter is OJ was found innocent. He is, whether he killed or didn't kill, inncoent and it's a matter of public record.

Actually, OJ was found to be "not guilty," which is different from being found "innocent." In the civil trial, he was held to be responsible for the murders based on a preponderance of evidence.

trader556 · May 27, 2003

Quote from ges:

They are everywhere. Some people will believe anything...the wackier it is, it seems, the more eager they are to swallow the lies whole.

It's been said, the larger the lie the easier is to sell

Quote from hapaboy:

This obviously proves that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our government and the Jewish cabal that runs it to attack its own citizens in order to invade Iraq down the road and grab the oil. Not only did Bush and Co. fire a missile at the Pentagon (what airliner?) but they brainwashed some Arabs into hijacking some planes and flying them into the WTC.

That Bin Laden guy? His real name is George Horowitz. He's from Jersey.

??????

Hapa are you smoking something?

FBI didn't say anything about Jweish cabal etc.

so let's stick to the subject for a moment:
FBI Admits: No Evidence Links 'Hijackers' to 9-11

the questions to ask are, how did the media know who the hijackers were, and who gave them that info. :mad:

and most important of it all, on no evidence or on media lies and whatever else, we have drug this country into two wars! Why??

Now If Shrub Oil Mafia and Co are behind this even partially, they need to pay. :mad:

This whole thing stinks really bad, and the closer we get to it the worst the stench. :mad:

Conspiracy? it looks like there is enough meat there to get the conspiracy theorists going for a long time.

ges · May 27, 2003

Quote from trader556:

Conspiracy? it looks like there is enough meat there to get the conspiracy theorists going for a long time.

That's a hoot! There is no meat there, but then that's the point. Conspiracy kooks don't need any meat at all. They create this stuff out of thin air.

g

ges · May 27, 2003

Quote from rlb21079:

Sorry pal, the fact of the matter is OJ was found innocent. He is, whether he killed or didn't kill, inncoent and it's a matter of public record.

Wrong! "Not guilty" is not at all the same thing as 'innocent'. The court doesn't find you 'innocent'. And no matter what the idiotic jury decided, it was clear to any rational human mind that OJ was guilty.

g

dookie · May 27, 2003

Quote from ges:

Wrong! "Not guilty" is not at all the same thing as 'innocent'. The court doesn't find you 'innocent'. And no matter what the idiotic jury decided, it was clear to any rational human mind that OJ was guilty.

g

dude ges, what the fucks wrong with these losers.
if i could i would put them out of their misery.
i wish there mother would be killed by someone they know but the guy get away because of the fucked up system we live under !!

Error 404 · May 27, 2003

Quote from dookie:

dude ges, what the fucks wrong with these losers.
if i could i would put them out of their misery.
i wish there mother would be killed by someone they know but the guy get away because of the fucked up system we live under !!

The "fucked up system" we "live under" is at least run by people who are literate, and believe in a justice system.

They don't wish people to be murdered like you do. They know the difference between the words "there" and "their", and they even know when to use apostrophes when they use four letter words in a contraction. And of course they know that "I" is capitalized. Unless they have very low self esteem. The vast majority of them can create grammatically correct sentences ("but the guy get away"???)

You should consider yourself lucky to live in a society that accepts freedom of speech and tolerance of people who's thoughts are so narrow minded and hateful as yours. You should contribute at least 30% of your income (if you have one) to the ACLU (if you know what it is, which is doubtful).

RS

alfonso · May 27, 2003

Quote from ges:

That's a hoot! There is no meat there, but then that's the point. Conspiracy kooks don't need any meat at all. They create this stuff out of thin air.

g

ges, there certainly is 'meat' in many of the questions raised about 9/11. Oodles of meat. Only it takes a willingness to consider that everything reported to you by your trustworthy media [cough, cough] or your trustworthy feds [cough, COUGH] may not be the truth, whole truth (and, in some cases, nothing even mildly resembling the truth.)

I know it can be difficult, but claims need to be investigated on their merit, not simply because of the esteem in which you hold the claimant, or the outlandish (seemingly, to oneself) nature of the claims.

ges · May 28, 2003

Quote from alfonso:

ges, there certainly is 'meat' in many of the questions raised about 9/11.

I disagree. Give me your sources. I can look at the left leaning media and the right leaning media and don't find support for wild conspiracy allegations.

Not to say that there can't be some stunning suprises, but right now I see no reason to expect anything like that.

g

rlb21079 · May 28, 2003

Quote from ges:

Wrong! "Not guilty" is not at all the same thing as 'innocent'. The court doesn't find you 'innocent'. And no matter what the idiotic jury decided, it was clear to any rational human mind that OJ was guilty.
g

Well since I tried to get you on a technicality, a dirty trick since I knew what you meant, I will concede.

Now, of course, I must ask you what the opposite of guilty is and whether or not by finding someone 'not guilty' you are implying that they possess this opposite property. Keep in mind the law's usage of language here because it is by design that they do not proclaim innocence. It is one thing to arrest someone, charge them, charge them*, and try them and say, "alright - you are not guilty." Politically speaking this is better than, "oops, you are innocent - our bad."

*charge them = lawyer fees, time out of work (oh, yeah but if you don't want to pay we'll give you an attorney! chuckle..chuckle)

But yes, I agree OJ is most likely not innocent. But then again, who is? Surely his crimes weren't the most horrific ever committed. Lots of folks get away with murder and probably even more get convicted without ever having actually committed a crime. Above all though, I think OJ's case was one for the ages. In the plain view of an attentive nation a man was found 'not guilty' for two reasons, (1) bungling officers of the law & (2) the possession of enough capital to take advantage of this bungling. And what did this attentive nation learn from this display? Not much. It seems most people are content with arguing whether OJ was actually innocent or guilty, whether the jury was stupid or dutiful, whether or not Marsha Clark deserves a good bang in the ass...
all very substantive and worthwhile debates to be sure.

"...and the home..of the...blind..."
play ball,
RLB