FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Posted in the database on Wednesday, June 07th, 2006 @ 19:32:26 MST
from Muckraker Report

This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBIÕs Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, ÒWhy doesnÕt Usama Bin LadenÕs Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?Ó The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for ÒwantingÓ Bin Laden by saying, ÒIn addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.Ó

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin LadenÕs Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin LadenÕs Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, ÒThe reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin LadenÕs Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.Ó

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, ÒHow this was possible?Ó Tomb continued, ÒBin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.Ó I asked, ÒHow does that work?Ó Tomb continued, ÒThe FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.Ó

It shouldnÕt take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to Òsmoke him out of his cave?Ó The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to Òroot outÓ Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden ÒconfessionÓ video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, ÒThere was no doubt of bin LadenÕs responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.Ó[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the Òconfession videoÓ and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the Ò9/11 confession videoÓ release, President Bush is said to have been hesitate to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be Òa devastating declarationÓ of Bin LadenÕs guilt. ÒWere going to get him,Ó said President Bush. ÒDead or alive, it doesnÕt matter to me.Ó

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that Òthe tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.Ó Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, ÒThe tapeÕs release is central to informing people in the outside world who donÕt believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.Ó Shelby went on to say ÒI donÕt know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.Ó Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isnÕt convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden Òconfession videoÓ, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesnÕt the FBI view the Òconfession videoÓ as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden Òconfession videoÓ not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, ÒThe FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.Ó This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the governmentÕs account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the governmentÕs 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the governmentÕs 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no Òhard evidenceÓ connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

ÉNo hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11É Think about it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases...1_bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks Ôbenefited Islam greatlyÓ, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/...laden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

 

Many people have posted this already.

 

well i hadnt read it yet, but yea, thats crazy

 

No, it's not. What's crazy is believing everything the media shoves down your throat.

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm