Did FBI Director Robert Mueller Really Say There Was No Legal Proof of hijackers ID?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

[Originally titled "Debunked: Al-Qaeda terrorists were legally identified as being responsible for 9/11."]

http://wtfrly.com/2012/08/05/911truth-wtfact-no-38/#.UFe6da4pRUA
Read it and weep.

 

[Leifer]

The un-clarity is likely because, at the time, many people shared the same name(s).
That would happen today, as well as 11 years ago.
I'm not weeping.
(weeping,
is a great scrabble word, btw)

...but their photos have yet to bring any credible refutes.
(btw..."refutes"....is 'nother helpful scrabble word)

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

They could "likely" be the people that the FBI identified them as also... I am just stating that there is no legal proof of this. Many people are under the assumption that there is proof positive of Al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks. This is far from the truth.

Maybe "read it and weep" was a bit cocky... but I felt my case is irrefutable and my ego took over hehe. Any challengers? Undebunkers?

 

[MikeC]

The article asks whether the FBI director ever said there was no "legal proof" of the identity oft the hijackers. That is not the same thing as saying no AQ terrorists weer legaly identified as being responsible for it!!

As far as I can see it then completely fails to answer the question.

However debunking the answer you seem to have presumed for the question asked in your link seems to have required no great effort.

As for the question YOU asked as the header to this thread, which is a different one entirely - that "Al-Qaeda terrorists were legally identified as being responsible for 9/11" - list of the hijackers - if you examine each of their individual records on that site you will see their links to AQ identified, so therefoer extablishing that AQ terrorists WERE legally identified as being responsible for 9/11.

In addition of course many AQ linked people were identified as holding various roles in supporting the attack, including financing it,and particularly Khalid Sheik Mohammed has been charged with organising the attacks, nd is clearly AQ linked and "resonsible" for the attacks.

Charging him seems a pretty obvious way of showing that he is considered "legally responsible" don't you think??

So that is your theory debunked fairly easily.

And can I suggest that if you are going to debunk something then you should use evidence that actually relates to teh subject you say you are debunking, and not something related but not actually relevant??

 

[Mick West]

I've edited the title of this thread to match the title of the article linked, as there was no real additional commentary to suggest otherwise. The original title was "Debunked: Al-Qaeda terrorists were legally identified as being responsible for 9/11."

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

@mike The title of this thread was edited, and now does not accurately represent my viewpoint. Therefore I have no response as the basis of your argument is not related to the claim I originally made.

I concede before I even start.

@Mick the link was supposed to show that the justice dept never indited any of the hijackers. As for all the other stuff it contained, that was not my argument.

 

[MikeC]

How coud they possibly indict dead hijackers??

Obviously my comments about the thread title are not quite accurate then - sorry aboutthat.

But still your point is somewhat garbled IMO, so my 3 points (2 in my first post, & the impossibility of charging dead highjackers) would seem to cover all the angles I think you are looking at - is ther anything else?

 

[Spongebob]

Really?

Another "nothing" thread?

Is it possible to have an "ignore list" of sites which will either not allow, or block links from certain sites?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I mistyped. I meant terrorists, as stated previously (Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda). not the 19 hijackers.
Forget it though. I pretty much lost me mojo.

 

[SR1419]

I mistyped. I meant terrorists, as stated previously (Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda). not the 19 hijackers.
Forget it though. I pretty much lost me mojo.

...and yet, they DID indict "terrorists" - does the name Khalid Sheik Mohammed ring a bell?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/nyregion/11indict.html?_r=0

 

[Mick West]

@mike The title of this thread was edited, and now does not accurately represent my viewpoint. Therefore I have no response as the basis of your argument is not related to the claim I originally made.

I concede before I even start.

@Mick the link was supposed to show that the justice dept never indited any of the hijackers. As for all the other stuff it contained, that was not my argument.

I'd recommend if you want to make a point in a similar way, you excerpt the portions of the linked article, and then add some commentary as to your own interpretation of it.

 

[SR1419]

Many people are under the assumption that there is proof positive of Al-Qaeda carrying out the attacks. This is far from the truth.

I disagree- the evidence from the KSM and the Moussaoui trials is quite convincing in my- and apparently the court's- opinion.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I said justice dept, not courts. That is a whole different animal. I requested this thread be closed. I'm Done with this one.

 

[MikeC]

AFAIK justice didn't indict them (KSM & 4 others) because the military was given authority over them - they were originally charged under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In 2010 those charges were dropped, then in 2011 they were again bought under military jurisdiction and the trial started on 5 May 2012.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I disagree- the evidence from the KSM and the Moussaoui trials is quite convincing in my- and apparently the court's- opinion.

Testimony obtained through torture is not convincing to me.

My request for thread closure was denied, but I will stop commenting and let it die naturally so to speak. I did want to get your comment on this first though Mike. You posted this in another thread.

Courts do rule on evidence and testimony - of both science and others. And they are subject topoor presentation, good presentation, etc just like anyone else.

Science is not a democracy - it does not matter how many courts rule "against" fluoridation - or for it for that matter - the rulings do not make it a good thing or a bad thing.

Does it matter how many courts rule against KSM?

 

[MikeC]

The case apparently does not rely upon evidence gathered by torture - prosecuter says that the evidence is actually suitable for use in a civilian court -

In announcing his decision, Holder blasted Congress for imposing restrictions on the Justice Department's ability to bring the men to New York for civilian trials -- a course of action he promised in 2009.

"After thoroughly studying the case, it became clear to me that the best venue for prosecution was in federal court. I stand by that decision today," Holder said.

Content from External Source

From here

And again no, it does not matter how many courts rule against or for KSM - he either carried out the crimes or he did not, and no number of courts "voting" wil change that.

Waht courts do is determine whethe there is enough evidence to conclude that he DID carry out crimes or not - and as I said befoer in relation to Fluoride (which seems like you are going WAY OT on both subjects!!) they can only look at the evidence that is presented to them, and make decisions based upon it. Their verdict(s) do not change what actually happened.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

SR1419 Do you agree with MikeC?

 

[SR1419]

^ With respect to what specifically?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

^ With respect to what specifically?

That Their verdict(s) do not change what actually happened.