PDA

View Full Version : FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”



Hardrock69
06-09-2006, 09:13 AM
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBI’s 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, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” 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 “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”



On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s 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 Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”



Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The 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.”



It shouldn’t 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 “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” 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 “confession” 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, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” 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 “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant 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 “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”



In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t 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 “confession video”, 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 doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” 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 “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?



Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” 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 government’s 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 government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 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 “hard evidence” 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?



…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

LoungeMachine
06-09-2006, 09:50 AM
unbelievable.

binnie
06-09-2006, 10:58 AM
Indeed.....

jcook11
06-09-2006, 11:05 AM
On June 8th the jcook11 headline says as follows...BLOW ME!

bueno bob
06-09-2006, 11:25 AM
“We're going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”

***********************

The first load of crap in a case of ever increasing crap that flows so effortlessly out of his mouth....

************************

"I don't know where bin Laden is and frankly I don't care. He's not a priority".

- George W. Bush

binnie
06-09-2006, 11:27 AM
True 'dat!

One man on his donkey eludes an entire army!

bueno bob
06-09-2006, 11:28 AM
Now...reading the original post and how Georgie just flip-flopped all over it in the span of just a few years...

Kinda makes you wonder...

binnie
06-09-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by bueno bob
Now...reading the original post and how Georgie just flip-flopped all over it in the span of just a few years...

Kinda makes you wonder...

I know what you mean, I like to look for the best in people, but Bush's handling of this is unbelievably suspect....

jcook11
06-09-2006, 11:33 AM
You ever been in the mountains of pakistan or afghanistan...I didn't think so.

frets5150
06-09-2006, 11:41 AM
No surprize here...Good read

frets5150
06-09-2006, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by jcook11
You ever been in the mountains of pakistan or afghanistan...I didn't think so.


What does that have to do with anything?

And yes I have :D

bueno bob
06-09-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by jcook11
You ever been in the mountains of pakistan or afghanistan...I didn't think so.

OK...that makes a difference because...?

I could understand that logic if all the U.S. had in place at the time was automated tanks or something...but outside of that, it doesn't hold up...

I tell you this, a group of twenty to maybe as many as thirty professional, top of the line bounty hunters with extended federal funding and open licenses to kill would have had Osama's shit taken care of inside of five months.

And I'm not talking Duane Chapman ("Dog") either, I'm talking REAL bounty hunters.

EAT MY ASSHOLE
06-09-2006, 11:58 AM
You douchebages crack me up.

One minute it was Bin Laden behind 9/11.

The next minute Bin Laden doesn't exist, he's a BCE invention.

Then Bin Laden DOES exist, but he was working in conjunction with the BCE.

now he's got nothing to do with 9/11, and is as sweet and innocent as the driven snow.

WHICH FUCKING ONE IS IT???

diamondD
06-09-2006, 12:00 PM
It depends on what the argument is at the moment. Then you're called a sheep.

bueno bob
06-09-2006, 12:05 PM
All I want to know is why George W. Bush no longer cares about him.

Nobody seems to have a good answer for that, so...I guess I have to draw my own conclusions...

diamondD
06-09-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
You douchebages crack me up.

One minute it was Bin Laden behind 9/11.

The next minute Bin Laden doesn't exist, he's a BCE invention.

Then Bin Laden DOES exist, but he was working in conjunction with the BCE.

now he's got nothing to do with 9/11, and is as sweet and innocent as the driven snow.

WHICH FUCKING ONE IS IT???


Don't forget, Jimmy Carter's policies actually created bin Laden, the following presidents continued his policy. It all started with him.

bueno bob
06-09-2006, 12:15 PM
Well...on a related note, I'd welcome reasons from Bush Jr. apologists as to why Bush suddenly seemed to lose interest in bin Laden once Iraq started heating up.

The only reason I've ever heard Bush give for pulling out of the bin Laden hunt is "I don't know where he's at and I don't care. He's not a priority."

And he said that very heatedly when questioned by reporters. No other reasons have I heard for Bush suddenly losing interest in bringing bin Laden to justice.

Does ANYBODY have anything outside of that? Has Bush ever given ANY reason why he basically abandoned the effort to capture bin Laden in favor of starting a clusterfuck in Iraq that is still unresolved?

Bueller....Bueller...

Fry...Fry...

binnie
06-09-2006, 01:41 PM
No, it makes no sense...

Hardrock69
06-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Unless Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11...then it makes perfect sense.

As for which story is the truth, ask Chimpy. He and his administration have been flip-flopping all over the place on Bin Laden.

They cannot get their 'story' straight.

DLR'sCock
06-09-2006, 08:08 PM
details details.....really no big whoop....

FORD
06-09-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by bueno bob
Now...reading the original post and how Georgie just flip-flopped all over it in the span of just a few years...

Kinda makes you wonder...

Actually, he flip-flopped in 6 months!!

http://www.liberalcartoons.com/images/ps0732.jpg

jcook11
06-09-2006, 08:41 PM
FORD, you wouldn't know hard evidence if someone hit you in the metal plate in your head with it.

bueno bob
06-10-2006, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by FORD
http://www.liberalcartoons.com/images/ps0732.jpg

That says it all right there...irrefutable.

binnie
06-10-2006, 02:31 AM
Yep!

jcook11
06-10-2006, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
Don't forget, Jimmy Carter's policies actually created bin Laden, the following presidents continued his policy. It all started with him.

The BCE got rid of Carter,Had something on LBJ to convince him to drop out . pulled out the black helicopters and scared Perot out of the race and I'm still trying to figure out how they fucked up Bush 41's second term and let clinton run the country for eight years?:confused: