It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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, 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.”
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 attack...
Originally posted by yizzel
Just because the Feds can't prove that Osama bin Laden was responsible doesn't mean he's innocent either.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by stevegmu
Point is if there is no hard evidence then where did the claim he did it come from in the first place? A guess, a hunch, a deception?
If there is NO evidence isn't it a little silly to claim someone is guilty.
You may as well claim Jim Carey did it using that kind of logic, for there is just as much a lack of evidence for his guilt also.
Hey, maybe we all did it...
Originally posted by yizzel
Just because the Feds can't prove that Osama bin Laden was responsible doesn't mean he's innocent either.
Just thought I'd point that out...
Originally posted by Wideawake08
911 WAS A INSIDE JOB AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT! YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE LIVING UNDER A ROCK OR HAVE THE BRAIN CELLS OF A JACK RABBIT NOT TO KNOW IT BY NOW.
THOSE THAT DISAGREE ARE BEING PAID TO TROLL THE BLOG SITES TO SPREAD DIS-INFO.
SO NOBODY TAKES THIS BLOG SERIOUSLY! JUST A GATHERING PLACE FOR OTHERS TO SEE YOUR NAMES AND KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
Originally posted by prevenge
well according to that logic.. then the same goes for YOU , yizzel.
-
Originally posted by yizzel
Originally posted by prevenge
well according to that logic.. then the same goes for YOU , yizzel.
-
LOL
Not really, I didn't setup a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan...
Originally posted by prevenge
Originally posted by yizzel
Originally posted by prevenge
well according to that logic.. then the same goes for YOU , yizzel.
-
LOL
Not really, I didn't setup a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan...
and how do we know this?
can you disprove this??
-