T Nation

Bin Laden: No Hard Evidence

I originally brought this issue up in the “Pentagon Video” thread as a curiosity, that the FBI’s own web site appeared not to have Bin Laden indicted for 9/11. In fact 9/11 is not even mentioned on his wanted poster.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

At the time I didn’t even realize it was so much a real issue – turns out maybe it really is…

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

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 connecting 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 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 “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.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Bin Laden says he’s pleased but not involved
St. Petersburg Times,
September 13, 2001
http://www.sptimes.com/News/091301/Worldandnation/Bin_Laden_says_he_s_p.shtml

Middle: the “Osama” in the smoking gun tape.

(if the pic dont work, click here http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/images/articles/3osamas.jpg )

I think, that Afghanistan was about fighting terrorists. The fact that Bin Laden was developing a terrorist network and the taliban were a government fomenting terror were important.

Now, the fact that there may not be evidence directly linking Bin Laden to 9/11 is a different issue. Being the known leader of a group and having evidence of direct ties to an event are very different things.

Jesus, why the hell does this piece of shit thread have a 5 star rating?

Go find another conspiracy theory, please.

  • Fools rush in where fools have been before -

This is true. They could not find bin Laden’s fingerprints in the rubble of the WTC.

Only an idiot would think the lack of physical evidence directly linking bin Laden to the actions he ordered means anything.

You’re turning into a parody of yourself JTF. Maybe you should sit the next few plays out…

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
I originally brought this issue up in the “Pentagon Video” thread as a curiosity, that the FBI’s own web site appeared not to have Bin Laden indicted for 9/11. In fact 9/11 is not even mentioned on his wanted poster.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

At the time I didn’t even realize it was so much a real issue – turns out maybe it really is…

[/quote]

At that time, I pointed out what a douchebag you are for not linking to the page BEFORE the one you did:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is true. They could not find bin Laden’s fingerprints in the rubble of the WTC.

Only an idiot would think the lack of physical evidence directly linking bin Laden to the actions he ordered means anything.[/quote]

BINGO!

[quote]NorskGoddess wrote:
Jesus, why the hell does this piece of shit thread have a 5 star rating?

Go find another conspiracy theory, please.

  • Fools rush in where fools have been before -[/quote]

“cognitive dissonance”

When people ask how could the government ever pull something like this off and keep it a secret, etc – this is your answer.

Even with our own FBI acknowledging we don’t have enough evidence to connect Bin Laden to 9/11, people will still refuse to look at the big picture.

You would know it’s true if you’d just look around and see what the US has become since 9/11.

Spying on US citizens, secret prisons, torture, held without trial, lying to start two wars (soon a third) – how many more clues do you actually need?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is true. They could not find bin Laden’s fingerprints in the rubble of the WTC.

Only an idiot would think the lack of physical evidence directly linking bin Laden to the actions he ordered means anything.

BINGO![/quote]

Shouldn’t you be protesting a movie somewhere?

Anyway, glad to see your still alive – I thought you where killed by a lion.

[quote]doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
I originally brought this issue up in the “Pentagon Video” thread as a curiosity, that the FBI’s own web site appeared not to have Bin Laden indicted for 9/11. In fact 9/11 is not even mentioned on his wanted poster.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

At the time I didn’t even realize it was so much a real issue – turns out maybe it really is…

At that time, I pointed out what a douchebag you are for not linking to the page BEFORE the one you did:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
[/quote]

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice.
Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

In other words Bin Laden hasn’t been indicted for 9/11 – and your pissed at ME.

What makes you think this is the provence of court-of-law style legal proof?

This isn’t something for DNA evidence that a jury can’t understand, or a pair of gloves that no longer fit because they shrunk after they were covered in blood.

This is an act of war, for which bin Laden claimed responsibility. That’s not the stuff of indictments, and has never been, throughout the course of modern history.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is true. They could not find bin Laden’s fingerprints in the rubble of the WTC.[/quote]

Only an “idiot” thinks evidence means anything – welcome to Amerika everybody.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

I thought you where killed by a lion.
[/quote]

Only delusional individuals that cannot separate the truth from yet another conspiratorial theory would jump into a lions den. Um…I beg you to stay away from your local Zoo.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Only delusional individuals that cannot separate the truth from yet another conspiratorial theory would jump into a lions den. Um…I beg you to stay away from your local Zoo.[/quote]

Ah yes, conspiracy theories. Remember the Bin Laden that orchestrated 9/11 – he once lived in a very magical place, in a land far, far away…

Bin Laden’s Mountain Fortress (great pic)
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm

Tim Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers.

This is it. This is a fortress. This is very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it’s built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it’s hard to detect.

And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot.

And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it’s own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It’s a very sophisticated operation.

Donald Rumsfeld: Oh, you bet. This is serious business. And there’s not one of those. There are many of those. And they have been used very effectively. And I might add, Afghanistan is not the only country that has gone underground. Any number of countries have gone underground. The tunneling equipment that exists today is very powerful. It’s dual use. It’s available across the globe. And people have recognized the advantages of using underground protection for themselves.

Hey, you know what else? I’ll bet that’s where the WMD are too…

“The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000 year-old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?”
–Carl Sagan

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is true. They could not find bin Laden’s fingerprints in the rubble of the WTC.

Only an idiot would think the lack of physical evidence (ie; NONE) directly linking bin Laden to the actions he ordered means anything.

Only an “idiot” thinks evidence means anything – welcome to Amerika everybody.[/quote]

You are a fool. Bin Laden was not a hijacker. Finding physical evidence of him on the planes is impossible. You are making a strawman argument.

We can only rely on the facts that the hijackers were part of the organization bin Laden heads.

Only a fool such as yourself can claim that because no physical evidence of bin Ladens involvement exists that the US government did it.

Go deny the holocaust again.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a fool. Bin Laden was not a hijacker. Finding physical evidence of him on the planes is impossible. You are making a strawman argument.

We can only rely on the facts that the hijackers were part of the organization bin Laden heads.

Only a fool such as yourself can claim that because no physical evidence of bin Ladens involvement exists that the US government did it.

Go deny the holocaust again.[/quote]

Why do you keep saying ‘physical’ evidence? There is NO hard evidence or otherwise connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 – zip, zilch, NADA.

And as it turns out, the confession tape appeared to be nothing more than propaganda…

…just like his fairy tale hideout.

And why has Spain indicted bin Laden for 9/11 and not the US???

Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism
9/17/2003
Reed Brody, an international justice expert with Human Rights Watch in New York, said Garzon indeed has the right to indict bin Laden.

“The crimes of bin Laden are the kind that any country is allowed to prosecute. No one has a monopoly on the right to bring bin Laden to justice,” Brody said.

“There may be more countries with an interest in indicting these people. At some point, one will have to see what country has the best possibility of bringing these people to justice and giving them a fair trial.” [who gets first dibs on bin Laden I wonder?]

Emilio Viano, professor for international criminal justice at American University in Washington, said Garzon’s action is not without risks.

“The danger is that so many countries will want to try these cases that what we’ll have is ineffective piecemeal trials. But the benefit is that we are beginning to expand the reach of justice.”

Viano said he believed this was the first indictment of bin Laden in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-17-spain-alqaeda_x.htm

You call me the conspiracy theorist but in reality your the guy who wants me to believe there is a crashed UFO in the desert.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a fool. Bin Laden was not a hijacker. Finding physical evidence of him on the planes is impossible. You are making a strawman argument.

We can only rely on the facts that the hijackers were part of the organization bin Laden heads.

Only a fool such as yourself can claim that because no physical evidence of bin Ladens involvement exists that the US government did it.

Go deny the holocaust again.

Why do you keep saying ‘physical’ evidence? There is NO hard evidence or otherwise connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 – zip, zilch, NADA.


[/quote]

What do you think hard evidence is?

Why is anyone (myself included) even bothering to debate this clown?

Attn: JTF is a loon. Pure and simple. A loon.

Anything said against his theories are government orchestrated lies. Any videos proving him wrong are government produced propaganda films. The only proof is in his head.

Does anybody remember the video of Bin Laden specifically taking credit for the 911 attacks? Then again that was government propaganda with either actors, or a mistranslation of what he really said.

Or maybe Bin Laden is actually a US government agent who is supposed to be a fake enemy to help America achieve its Illuminati controlled goals.