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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), 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.” [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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.” [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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.”[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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.[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]<snip>[/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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? [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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? [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
    [/FONT]


    Continue...
    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]


    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]SOURCE
    [/FONT]
     
  2. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    He was useful when Bush was looking frantically for an excuse to invade Iraq, however.
     

Share This Page

Loading...