FBI States No Hard Evidence Connects Bin Laden to 9/11

[TRUTH]

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.

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

[Ally]

on a similar note.....


Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

DICK CHENEY, THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060329-2.html

[orestes]

So Cheney claims that Iraq was connected to 9/11. But now we know that was bs. So do they officially have any reason for the wars and the next one?

[TRUTH]

When I first read the article by Ed Haas claiming that the FBI admits it has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, I took it with a grain of salt. It frankly seemed incredible that one of the FBI's lead spokesmen, the Chief of Investigative Publicity, would say “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

But then I found this article from Wired magazine dated September 27, 2001:

"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."

President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.

Because the list is used to attract the public's attention to a fugitive, careful consideration must take place before a decision is made, Tomb said. The FBI evaluates if publicity will help or hinder the search for a suspect."

Because the same spokesman said essentially the same thing back in 2001, Ed Haas' claim is sounding more credible.

And everyone in the world knows who Bin Laden is and what he looks like, so there wouldn't be any concern that publicity would hinder the search for Bin Laden.

So the question is: If there's no hard evidence linking Bin Laden and 9/11 four and a half years after the attack, why is the government still blaming Bin Laden for 9/11?

This is an especially good question given that European scholars stated that the Americans mistranslated Bin Laden's "confession tape" (Google translation is here). And one of the world's leading experts on Bin Laden stated that the videos showing Bin Laden confessing to 9/11 are fake; the physical features of the man in the videos also appear to be different from the real Bin Laden.

Add to that the fact that many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers appear to still be alive (see also this article), but the FBI apparently continues to this day to stick to its list of 19 hijackers (and some of the alleged hijackers don't fit their official FBI profiles very well). It is also interesting that other evidence surrounding the hijackers appears to have been faked.

Were these people framed? If so, why?

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/06/fbi-has-no-evidence.html

[Newspeak International]

One word, Golddust (alright I cannot control myself) ultimate proof,
blasted manna from the Gods, inevitable implosion of the PTB, and ammunition for the truth.


sorry

[Wokeman]

So, why is George H.W. Bush in Harrogate?. Not very far from Menwith Hill, or is that not important. Why is he attending a Yorkshire Biz Conference. What possible importance can that have for a former President of the United States.

[Newspeak International]

What is the significance of Menwith hill,Wokeman?

[paul wright]

[Newspeak International]

Thanks for that dh, I guess I over-reacted last night soz about that.