FBI: No hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 Source: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3419.html In the summer of 2006, Muckraker Report editor Ed Haas received an e-mail asking why the FBI's Most Wanted poster of Usama (or Osama) bin Laden (UBL) -- head of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, and generally considered the mastermind behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (9/11) -- does not mention UBL's involvement in the 9/11 atrocity. (1) A glance at the FBI page was enough to confirm the e-mail's truth. Originally posted in 1999, the page was updated after 9/11, in Nov. 2001, at which time the reward for UBL was raised to $25 million. Yet the page still said (and still says today) absolutely nothing about 9/11. (2) Haas contacted the FBI and received this explanation from spokesman Rex Tomb, at that time the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity: That admission raises some disturbing questions, ones that any Pulitzer-seeking journalist would be expected to follow up. Yet, two years later, the main stream media (MSM) has almost completely ignored the story. One reason those questions are disturbing is that, immediately after the 9/11 kamikaze attack, UBL reportedly denied any Al Qaeda involvement. An interview published on Sept. 28, 2001, by the Pakistani news service Ummat has him declaring: Yet, at the same time, the U.S. government was already claiming to have evidence sufficient to warrant invading Afghanistan to capture UBL and bring him to justice; and was able to persuade Congress to authorize an invasion. After the invasion, U.S. troops occupying Jalalabad found a videotape of UBL taking responsibility for the attack, and praising the suicide hijackers. President George W. Bush reportedly called the so-called Confession video "a devastating declaration" of UBL's guilt. Added Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York during 9/11 (and a presidential candidate this year, whose abortive campaign was based almost entirely on that one fact), "the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified." (1) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was careful to emphasize, in a press release accompanying the Confession video's release, that "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered." (4) However, a couple of 9/11 Truth sites have found and noted problems with the Confession video. Prison Planet pointed out that, while UBL is left handed, the speaker on the videotape writes a note with his right hand. (5) Infowars discovered that he got two of the hijackers' names wrong. (6) Both sites concluded that the video is a fake, which fits their thesis that bin Laden was in fact innocent. On the other hand, Haas believes the Confession video to be genuine. (4) Indeed, none of this is proof of the Truth sites' allegations. The truth may be simpler: There may indeed be no hard evidence, but compelling evidence nonetheless. Anyone who has viewed the CSI TV series has an idea of what "hard evidence" consists of: DNA, fingerprints, ballistics, etc. Testimony, including confessions, is not hard evidence. The only plausible hard evidence would be a paper trail (or an e-trail) showing that UBL gave the orders, and that trail just might not exist. Its failure to exist is not proof of UBL's innocence. Similarly, even if the Confession video were found to be a fake, that would not in itself be evidence against UBL's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. (Concluding that would be an example of the logical fallacy known as Denying the Antecedent.) It may even make sense "from a legal point of view" -- as former U.S. attorney David N. Kelley told the Washington Post (the one MSM outlet that did cover the story) -- to omit mention of 9/11 as "no formal charges have been filed. (7) However, that begs the question: Why, almost seven years later, have no formal charges ever been filed? If there is sufficient evidence to indict UBL -- if there is "no doubt" of his complicity, as Rumsfeld claims -- then why has no indictment ever been sought? If there is a simple explanation for that, then why was that not given to Haas? One would think that the authorities would be anxious to give him as full an explanation, and show him as much of their evidence, as possible, if only to get him to drop the story. Instead, they've done and accomplished the opposite. Haas has kept on the story for two years,, submitting Freedom of Information requests to the FBI, the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM to discover how they authenticated the Confession video. Yet as of March, "not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the [Confession] videotape or that it even went through an authentication process." DoD referred his request to CENTCOM; CENTCOM has yet to reply. The FBI challenged the request, lost, and then responded that it had no relevant documents. The CIA has refused to confirm or deny whether it has any such documents. (4) One also has to wonder why the MSM has paid so little attention to this story - so little that (on Mar. 18, 2008) Project Censored, of independent press network Voltairenet, ranked Mr. Haas's original expose as one of the "Top 25 Censored Stories" of 2007. (4) While the story may not indicate a 9/11 conspiracy, it definitely smells of a cover-up. Why is the U.S. government so reluctant to prove UBL's complicity? If they have compelling evidence, why not seek an indictment? Why not share as much information as possible with American citizens? Why ask them to take Donald Rumsfeld's word for it to trust Rumsfeld, when Rumsfeld does not trust them? Sadly, all this is in line with the negative conclusions of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) (another 2008 presidential candidate, who did somewhat better than Giuliani), who has publicly called for re-opening the 9/11 investigation. In May of last year, Paul told Reason magazine that he accepts the U.S. government's account of UBL's complicity: "I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated." However, Paul expressed his concern that much of the truth was being covered up: Rep. Paul is right. The official U.S. government account of how 9/11 happened may be entirely factual. However, that government's continual refusal to be open and transparent with those facts, and the MSM's dogged refusal to report them, only serves to sow suspicion and distrust of their account. Sources: (1) Ed Haas, "FBI says, No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html ----------------------- (2) "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive -- Usama bin Laden," http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm ----------------------- (3) "Usama bin Laden Says the Al-Qa'idah Group had Nothing to Do with the 11 September Attacks," robert-fisk.com, Sept. 5, 2003. http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm ----------------------- (4) Ed Haas, "No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," voltairenews.org, Mar. 18, 2008. http://www.voltairenet.org/article155945.html ----------------------- (5) Paul Joseph Watson, "Washington Post Doesn't Answer Why No Bin Laden 9/11 Indictment," Prison Planet.com, Aug. 28 2006 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm ----------------------- (6) Steve Watson, "Expert Goes On Record: Bin Laden 9/11 Confession Is Bogus," infowars.net, Feb. 19, 2007 http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm ----------------------- (7) Dan Eggen, "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?", Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html ----------------------- (8) David Weigel, "Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero," Hit & Run, Reason online, May 22, 2007. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html ----------------------- ------------- EDIT: Also check out http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html Shocking!!!
What silliness. He was indicted for crimes and that is what he is wanted for. There is no need or requirement to list every crime on a wanted poster. He was already on the list for the listed crimes, what difference does it make to list others? I love when American haters post nonsense to make a non-point. This thread and topic deserves a big; SO WHAT!
The difference is that the FBI says it hasn't indicted Bin Laden for 9/11, nor can they prove he did 9/11. Most people would think that was relevant, instead of conducting a disinfo campaign by trying to debate the semantic merits of a wanted poster.
He was wanted for crimes committed before 9/11, and that is what the poster is for. I know how deperately you want American to be responsible for 9/11, but this single alleged quote by Rex Tomb does not prove anything of the sort.
The poster is irrelevant. Once again, this is about the FBI having no case against Bin Laden. Just to be clear, are you saying that Bin Laden did 9/11?
I could really care less about Osama or who is at fault personally. The point is, and should be that it is an ideology that is too blame. Those that believe in that ideology, are as much as fault as any one person, organization, or cult religion. It's been pretty apparent anyway for quite some time that Obama is dead.
Well, I know he lost PA, but c'mon - Indiana's a dead heat, he's going to hand Clinton her hat in N. Carolina, and it's on to the general....Freudian wishful thinking?
I think you are thinking of Osama Bin Bama.. Here is one of his biggest supporters, (pun intended) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
Obama is going to be our next President. I was never a Bush fan, so I am happy his term is over. However, Obama to me is the weakest of the three left on issues of national security. That alone gives me great pause about the future. I kinda like McCain but I do not trust his judgment to pick the next two Supreme Court Justices. (I don't know about the other two's picks either, but with the current court balance, McCain could do the most damage) To think Bush wanted Harriet Miers on the court.
If I ever commit a crime, then make a video tape bragging about I want this guys on my jury. I bet you there in California, they let all celebrities off.
I'm for Osama myself. I was not a Bush fan either. I supported Keyes the first time around. However, I must say, I am quite pleased that we had Bush during the tumultuous period in American history, particularly 9/11. I feel much safer post 9/11 than I did in the days that followed. I have to agree on the McCain possible choices for the courts. He's had a history of backing way too many libs. Hopefully he choses justices that will not legislate. In any event, its pretty apparent history will find fault with Bush relevant to fiscal responsibility, but will praise his defense of our country and tax cuts. Given the current state we are in, war on terror, economy, and other issues of concern, it is quite doubtful that a freshmen senator from the land of the dead vote will ever be president. Popularity does not win elections, as history has proven time and time again! I'd rather have someone with experience, conviction and fear of God than someone who has really done very little in the way of anything relevant to the job description of president. I'd prefer Hillary over Obama. She at least has some experience in that area, and has actually held jobs in the private sector.
Jeremy, you've said this a number of times, that Obama never had a job prior to becoming an Illinois Senator, and I've pointed out that in fact he has. Why do you continue to say this?
All of these people are elites. They haven't hustled french fries at a burger joint. For crissakes, they probably get someone to tie their shoes for them. Don't kid yourselves, these people probably don't know what milk or bread costs. They aren't like us. They are our "betters".
This is such a hackneyed refrain of conspiracy theorists. Yep, bon-bon eaters who have known no other relationship but the people they hire to tie their shoes. McCain's ass was a 5 1/2 year, tortured POW. He honorably served in the U.S. Navy from 1958 to 1981. Clinton comes from a Methodist family of moderately successful standing, having run a decent small business. She was early on active in politics, having volunteered for many candidates, among others, Barry Goldwater, for his 1964 presidential bid. As a private practice attorney, she consistently worked hard on behalf of children and children's health issues, serving many organizations on a pro-bono basis. Obama opted not to work the path easily available to him - with the fresh glow of being the first black law school student to hold the prestigious editorship of the Harvard Law Review, and the accolade, during his tenure, of being the putatively "top law student" in the U.S., he was very much a "rock star" and could have worked at any law firm in the country - and went to work in community activism in Chicago, both from within and from without his work as an attorney. These people are all rich. But this doesn't mean somehow they are a collective aristocracy. Using this as a battle cry is meaningless, in my opinion.
You mean the first 1/2 black pres right? I was the owner of the first company to bring Wireless Internet to the state of Wisconsin. Can I be considered the first Italian American to do so? I mean, I am 1/2... I have a little American Indian in me, can I be considered the first Indian to do so? I'm not sure what the significance is. By segregating prestige and recognition by race are we some how sending a negative message about African Americans? I mean if an equal number of African Americans had been afforded the right and the ability to go to Harvard, would there not be a 50/50 (1/2)/split of black vs white winning such a position? What about women? And for that matter, what about African Women? Jews, Italians, Indians, Mexicans???? Even Spock, logical as he was Vulcan as he appeared and acted still took the time to remind others he was 1/2 human. I think it is important to recognize both races, not to single one or the other out when it suits with historical significance or political gain. To do so pretty much eliminates half of your audience. Because it is true. Wait, I'm wrong.. Duh, Obama did work in the summers sometimes, part time writing briefs.. Wait, yeah, he did indeed work for some guy named Tony... Let's see, what was that Tony guys last name... Rezko or something? Seems Obama got $250k + from the guy for his political run in the city were only the dead vote. Interesting... It would seem that Rezko was indicted for political corruption charges and the case was brought to trial just last month. Obama has yet to be implicated in any wrongdoing. In any event, if Obama is indicted, will the headlines read something like this: "Barrack Obama has been the first African American indited in the Tony Rezko corruption case."