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 linking Bin Laden to 9/11

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
BPI

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   


www.teamliberty.net...

...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.”


So, why wasnt the Bin Laden (Redd Foxx) confession tape good enough for the FBI? Or the bin laden tape commenting in mossaoui? Bin Laden says it very clear that mossaoui wasnt one of the 19 brothers he had chosen for the mission. Is the FBI claiming BS like all of the "crazy" conspiracy theorists?

[edit on 7-6-2006 by BPI]

Mod Edit: No Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.


[edit on 7/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
A similar 'story' was published almost immediately after the WTC attacks -



Daily Telegraph (UK) : 15th September 2001

THE European Union's chief anti-terrorism officer cast doubt yesterday on claims that Osama bin Laden was solely responsible for Tuesday's attacks.

"As for the idea that, sitting in Afghanistan, he could have controlled the last phase of the operation is something we should not accept without a lot of doubt."

Mr Storbeck, a German lawyer, said that Britain was providing valuable leads on the attacks, but the German police, immigration, and customs services were playing the key role.

This suggests that the German authorities are highly sceptical about bin Laden's role and may have uncovered evidence pointing in a different direction.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
First up: He has admitted involvement a few times

Secondly: Wrong forum

[edit on 7-6-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Secondly: Wrong forum


It's the right forum, since it deals with Osama Bin Laden as a wanted terrorist, not just the 9/11 aspect.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Clearly the FBI needs to get Sky television, or a radio or something that connects them with the outside world.
On the other hand maybe the FBI knows who really did it? Maybe they think it was one of them? Or "die-hard" supporters trying to increase the popularity of the Republican Party, or some other conspiracy like that.
Me? Well personally I think it might be Aliens
(visitors from other worlds without proper passports).

But it is amazing that they come out and say something like that after all those Afghan videos. Next they will be saying they aren’t sure if the man in them is Osama Bin Laden. Could he be an actor? Will death row ever have time tell? The jury’s out you decide.


BPI

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Skippy, i thought about the forum. This was what the whole war on terror was based on so i figured the "war on Terrorism" was the right forum. And Bin Laden has denied the involvement more than he has confessed it.

You say he admitted it a few times, that's the point. So why isnt that evidence good enough for the FBI. Seriously ask yourself that question, before you just say oh well he admitted it, go to another forum. I believe this story is huge. I think anyone who has researched the confession tape, feels it's not legit. first of all they just "found" it in Afghanistan. Just laying in a pile of rubble. So look for yourself:

www.whatreallyhappened.com... or google bin laden confession tape



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
This is shocking... if only for the simple fact that this was said so openly.

It's a shame that will probably not get the attention it needs, nor the resources to confirm or deny this actually happened. In any case, i'm sure this'll end up down the memory hole in no time....



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
www.fbi.gov...

The thing is that its not updated. For example the reward is now 50 million, not 25 million. And also he has admitted the terrorist attacks on 9/11 besides that other video that was found in Afghanistan. Al Jazeera aired a video showing Osama justifying the attacks.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
There are also his latest remarks about Mousoui (spelling?). He says he was not one of the hand picked "brothers".



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
maybe it's framework to link someone or several others to the attack, ie: Saddam, Iran, Putin, ul-Fuqra, Pyunyang. . . uh, Hilary.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BPI


www.teamliberty.net...

...So, why wasnt the Bin Laden (Redd Foxx) confession tape good enough for the FBI? Or the bin laden tape commenting in mossaoui? Bin Laden says it very clear that mossaoui wasnt one of the 19 brothers he had chosen for the mission. Is the FBI claiming BS like all of the "crazy" conspiracy theorists?


The expression, "Conspiracy Theorists" was coined and designed by conspirators who hate freedom and who are involved in the global conspiracy. It is far more honest to tell people using free media that they must not believe there is a conspiracy in a free country, rather than hide hatred of liberty by calling them "Conspiracy Theorists" and becoming paranoid over the right of belief.

Mod Edit: BB Code

[edit on 7/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The evidence for complicity to 911 points more to Bush than to Bin Laden. We didn't even see Bin Laden, but we saw Bush profitting from the disaster today to the demand that he be made king for failing to protect 3,000 lives. He obstructed an immediate investigation of the tragedy, and when called to testify, he had major issues his propaganda team didn't consider.

When they demanded to install the Patriot Act in order to snoop on our private information, his propaganda team replied to objectors, "What, you have something to hide?" They forgot to say anything when Bush had issues with a simple and crucial immediate investigation of the most catastrophic modern-day in soil disaster in American history!



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
My guess is that it all comes down to what "proof" is. I can come out on numerous videos and audio tapes and allege my responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately, that isn't proof. You certainly need legitimate, corroborating evidence. Even with testimony from co-conspirators such as Kalid Sheik Mohammed, successful prosecution of bin Laden would be unlikely (assuming a fair and impartial jury were assembled). The reason being is that accomplace testimony is inadmissible without corroboration in US courts.

The fact that 9/11 isn't listed on bin Laden's FBI wanted poster is due to legal reasons and the burden of proof, in my opinion. I always read or watch stories of crazy or attention-starved people claiming responsibility for crimes which they didn't committ. Even if we wanted to throw someone in jail for the crime, we'd need somekind of hard evidence to support their confession.

Anyone agree?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
How much less that Saddam got blamed for the issue. Still, the reactions of Bush show that he was involved. It can only be Nazicon insanity that would empower Bush to have the power to destroy a person in secret on an accusation of having ties to terrorists.

Every person I know of, if called to testify about 911, would have no reservations whatsoever of even testifying in court, let alone them having no responsibility to protect the 3,000 who perished! Far more than 99% of the American people would testify under oath alone like easy! Bush could not do that!!

The Neocons never blushed, but kept telling us that Michael Moore is an embarrassment! There is just too much bloody history for us not to know what is about to take place when waves of people among us claiming to be Americans cannot blush!



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
When a Terrorist group does an act of Terror they make it crystal clear who did it. Otherwise the act of terror was a moot point. To do something as big as 9/11 and not make it really clear, the day it was done would be rather idiotic. Actually to do 9/11 to help your cause would be idiotic in the first place, that is not why terror is done in the first place. All Islamic Terror is done to get America to do something to help Islam's cause, to get the average Americans attention to what is going on.

Not to do something to make us attack them. They know better, and most of you should too.

Edit to add: Before 9/11 I knew a lot about Islamic terror. One of the things that made me suspicious about 9/11 was that this was not theyre M.O. Try and find some pre-9/11 literature about Islamic terror, you will be surprised.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
With President Bush now looming to be king through the insanity of the Neocons, etc., how will this benefit Islam? In just the response they lost more Arab lives than they took at 911.

Osama seems to want to attack everything EXCEPT PRESIDENT BUSH, and President Bush seems to want to attack everything EXCEPT OSAMA.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Here's an article from the Washington Post today on this subject...

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?


"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."



David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.


Really... since when? Now the admin is going to be concerned about the terrorist's rights?


"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."


Why hasn't he been charged with the attacks on 9/11? If they are sure he did it, why aren't they charging him? If they don't think he did it, then who did? If OBL is captured, do they charge him then? If so, why not now?

I'm no legal expert, but this doesn't make sense to me...



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100

Osama seems to want to attack everything EXCEPT PRESIDENT BUSH, and President Bush seems to want to attack everything EXCEPT OSAMA.


You know I never thought about it from this angle...geez... whether its relevant or not; it IS true... they never seem to attack each other directly... and in fact bush said himself that he is not concerned about him.. But if this guy pulled off 911 why would you not be concerned about bringing him to justice?

everyday this whole WOT stinks more and more and more. This govt. cant keep its story straight(typical of lying) and with the FBI saying they have no hard evidence.. well duh.. the guy said himself right after the attacks that he didnt do it...what the hell kind of terrorists says they didnt do it? arent they usually the ones to brag till the cows come home about doing something? If he did it he wouldve come right out and said it. Not some found confession on a dubios tape that looks incredibly flawed

Besides ole binny boy is pushin up daisies anyway... remember he was on Dialysis.. and the expected chance of recovery of renal function from this is a whopping 2-4%. good luck beating those odds OBL....



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
You know I never thought about it from this angle...geez... whether its relevant or not; it IS true... they never seem to attack each other directly... and in fact bush said himself that he is not concerned about him.. But if this guy pulled off 911 why would you not be concerned about bringing him to justice?

everyday this whole WOT stinks more and more and more. This govt. cant keep its story straight(typical of lying) and with the FBI saying they have no hard evidence.. well duh.. the guy said himself right after the attacks that he didnt do it...what the hell kind of terrorists says they didnt do it? arent they usually the ones to brag till the cows come home about doing something? If he did it he wouldve come right out and said it. Not some found confession on a dubios tape that looks incredibly flawed

Besides ole binny boy is pushin up daisies anyway... remember he was on Dialysis.. and the expected chance of recovery of renal function from this is a whopping 2-4%. good luck beating those odds OBL....


Well, OBL really has no way of attacking Bush. not to many people have the ability of directly attacking the president of the United States. And so long as OBL is within Pakistan, Bush has no way of attacking OBL either.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Also, the question comes up about why he initially denied any involvement (which later he admitted to). Initially, an admittence would mean an immediate invasion of the country which was hosting Bin Laden. So he likely denied it so as to help post pone any invasion, giving himself and the taliban time to prepare and flee. Once all that was over and he was safe, then he started admitting it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join