No, that is not a joke. What it is, in reality, is one of the "Top 25 Censored Stories" of 2007. by George Dance
(libertarian)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
In the summer of 2006, Muckraker Report editor Ed Haas received an e-mail asking why the FBI's Most Wanted poster of Usama (or Osama) bin Laden (UBL) -- head of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, and generally considered the mastermind behind the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 (9/11) -- does not mention UBL's involvement in the 9/11 atrocity. (1)
A glance at the FBI page was enough to confirm the e-mail's truth. Originally posted in 1999, the page was updated after 9/11, in Nov. 2001, at which time the reward for UBL was raised to $25 million. Yet the page still said (and still says today) absolutely nothing about 9/11. (2)
Haas contacted the FBI and received this explanation from spokesman Rex Tomb, at that time the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity:
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.... 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. (1)
That admission raises some disturbing questions, ones that any Pulitzer-seeking journalist would be expected to follow up. Yet, two years later, the main stream media (MSM) has almost completely ignored the story.
One reason those questions are disturbing is that, immediately after the 9/11 kamikaze attack, UBL reportedly denied any Al Qaeda involvement. An interview published on Sept. 28, 2001, by the Pakistani news service Ummat has him declaring:
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. (3)
Yet, at the same time, the U.S. government was already claiming to have evidence sufficient to warrant invading Afghanistan to capture UBL and bring him to justice; and was able to persuade Congress to authorize an invasion.
After the invasion, U.S. troops occupying Jalalabad found a videotape of UBL taking responsibility for the attack, and praising the suicide hijackers. President George W. Bush reportedly called the so-called Confession video "a devastating declaration" of UBL's guilt. Added Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York during 9/11 (and a presidential candidate this year, whose abortive campaign was based almost entirely on that one fact), "the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified." (1)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was careful to emphasize, in a press release accompanying the Confession video's release, that "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered." (4)
However, a couple of 9/11 Truth sites have found and noted problems with the Confession video. Prison Planet pointed out that, while UBL is left handed, the speaker on the videotape writes a note with his right hand. (5) Infowars discovered that he got two of the hijackers' names wrong. (6) Both sites concluded that the video is a fake, which fits their thesis that bin Laden was in fact innocent.
On the other hand, Haas believes the Confession video to be genuine. (4)
Indeed, none of this is proof of the Truth sites' allegations. The truth may be simpler: There may indeed be no hard evidence, but compelling evidence nonetheless. Anyone who has viewed the CSI TV series has an idea of what "hard evidence" consists of: DNA, fingerprints, ballistics, etc. Testimony, including confessions, is not hard evidence. The only plausible hard evidence would be a paper trail (or an e-trail) showing that UBL gave the orders, and that trail just might not exist. Its failure to exist is not proof of UBL's innocence.
Similarly, even if the Confession video were found to be a fake, that would not in itself be evidence against UBL's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. (Concluding that would be an example of the logical fallacy known as Denying the Antecedent.)
It may even make sense "from a legal point of view" -- as former U.S. attorney David N. Kelley told the Washington Post (the one MSM outlet that did cover the story) -- to omit mention of 9/11 as "no formal charges have been filed. (7) However, that begs the question: Why, almost seven years later, have no formal charges ever been filed?
If there is sufficient evidence to indict UBL -- if there is "no doubt" of his complicity, as Rumsfeld claims -- then why has no indictment ever been sought? If there is a simple explanation for that, then why was that not given to Haas? One would think that the authorities would be anxious to give him as full an explanation, and show him as much of their evidence, as possible, if only to get him to drop the story.
Instead, they've done and accomplished the opposite. Haas has kept on the story for two years,, submitting Freedom of Information requests to the FBI, the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM to discover how they authenticated the Confession video. Yet as of March, "not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the [Confession] videotape or that it even went through an authentication process." DoD referred his request to CENTCOM; CENTCOM has yet to reply. The FBI challenged the request, lost, and then responded that it had no relevant documents. The CIA has refused to confirm or deny whether it has any such documents. (4)
One also has to wonder why the MSM has paid so little attention to this story - so little that (on Mar. 18, 2008) Project Censored, of independent press network Voltairenet, ranked Mr. Haas's original expose as one of the "Top 25 Censored Stories" of 2007. (4)
While the story may not indicate a 9/11 conspiracy, it definitely smells of a cover-up. Why is the U.S. government so reluctant to prove UBL's complicity? If they have compelling evidence, why not seek an indictment? Why not share as much information as possible with American citizens? Why ask them to take Donald Rumsfeld's word for it to trust Rumsfeld, when Rumsfeld does not trust them?
Sadly, all this is in line with the negative conclusions of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) (another 2008 presidential candidate, who did somewhat better than Giuliani), who has publicly called for re-opening the 9/11 investigation. In May of last year, Paul told Reason magazine that he accepts the U.S. government's account of UBL's complicity: "I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated." However, Paul expressed his concern that much of the truth was being covered up:
I do think there were cover-ups, and I think it was mainly to cover up who was blamed, who's inept. See, they had the information. The FBI had an agent who was very much aware of the terrorists getting flight lessons but obviously not training to be pilots. He reported it 70 times or whatever and it was totally ignored. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence. It wasn't a lack of money or a lack of intelligence, it was a lack of the ability to put the intelligence together. Even the administration had been forewarned that something was coming, the CIA had been forewarned. So it was a cover up of who to blame. I see it more that way. (8)
Rep. Paul is right. The official U.S. government account of how 9/11 happened may be entirely factual. However, that government's continual refusal to be open and transparent with those facts, and the MSM's dogged refusal to report them, only serves to sow suspicion and distrust of their account.
----------
Sources:
(1) Ed Haas, "FBI says, No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html
(2) "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive -- Usama bin Laden," http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
(3) "Usama bin Laden Says the Al-Qa'idah Group had Nothing to Do with the 11 September Attacks," robert-fisk.com, Sept. 5, 2003. http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm
(4) Ed Haas, "No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," voltairenews.org, Mar. 18, 2008. http://www.voltairenet.org/article155945.html
(5) Paul Joseph Watson, "Washington Post Doesn't Answer Why No Bin Laden 9/11 Indictment," Prison Planet.com, Aug. 28 2006 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/280806binladen.htm
(6) Steve Watson, "Expert Goes On Record: Bin Laden 9/11 Confession Is Bogus," infowars.net, Feb. 19, 2007 http://www.infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm
(7) Dan Eggen, "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?", Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
(8) David Weigel, "Ron Paul on 9/11 and Eric Dondero," Hit & Run, Reason online, May 22, 2007. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 75
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-10 06:59:55
Good article, well written and the references are always appreciated and somewhat necessary when you talk such controversial topics, but at times even with good references people choose not to see with their eyes but their ears.
The 9/11 truth movement's story and evidence is much more compelling than the governments.
Peace is the enemy of the STATE
War the enemy Peace
Therefore War is the ally of the STATE
Without 9/11, we wouldnt have this war, we'd have a lot more of our civil Liberties (our ability to resist tyranny), we wouldnt have a huge debt ( MIC), we'd have a better world image, gas would be at $27 a barrell, inflation would not be 17% (M3), no REAL ID, no PATRIOT ACT, Israel would have less allies from the west in the war against ISLAM, the list goes on.
"Nothing in world politics happens by chance, if and when it happens you can be assured it was planned" Theodore Roosevelt
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-10 08:00:29
I would also like to pose something for thought.
"Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda" attack our country, giving us "reason" to invade Afghanistan.
We occupy Afghanistan, all of a suddden the world heroin trade surplus skyrockets. Over the last 3 consecutive years Afghan poppy production has increased expedentially.
I was in Afghanistan last year, working on a project in which I worked closely with the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Agency doing poppy "irradication". What strikes me as quizical, is why International Narcotics Agents would fly over 40 miles of lush poppy fields to go destroy a rival cheiftains 4 acre crop. Is this "irradication" or selective control? Why only destroy certain poppy fields and not all. Most in the program estimate between 1-2% of the poppy crop is destroyed prior to harvest.
If you look at the geography of Afghanistan you will see they are essentially land locked, so how is the herion getting out of a country in which we occupy? Are they walking it out of Iran? I highly doubt that as it is punishable by death. Pakistan maybe. How about flying it out on unopposed big military jets right into Germany? Herion in Europe is becoming a huge problem.
So are we fighting herion world wide or controlling the market? Are we fighting the papaver somniferum plant or fighting the competition?
I reject the truthers' contention that our government was responsible for 9/11. But i agree that there is no convincing evidence that Bin Ladin was responsible. Just as we used the Lockerbie incident as an excuse to bomb Libya, when we knew the plot originated in Syria, the government was just using 9/11 as an excuse to "get" somone just for being a bad man. As is the case with the Iraq invasion.
"One also has to wonder why the MSM has paid so little attention to this story"
Really? It is obvious. A story that has little ground to show for itself would only agitate the irrational truthers. This story needed to be ignored. No matter how you report on it, your credibility would be questioned because it allows for the insane, irrational, and useless technicality of truthers to come out.
If you were to cover this story, you might as well cover every end-of-the-world doom prediction that some nutcase makes, every UFO sighting, every alternative medicine story, every psychic that shows up, and every creationist / intelligent design story that comes up.
So the FBI is incompetent? Tell us something that we don't know.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-10 11:32:35
Yes it is hard to believe that our governement was directly responsible for 9/11. But dont confuse your "government" with who's in charge.
I have a hard time believing with 18 intelligence agencies that we didnt see it coming?
Is failing to stop it complicity? Like Pearl Harbor, yeah the Japaneese Navy might have attacked us, but if we let them are they solely to blame or do we share in the blame?
"I have a hard time believing with 18 intelligence agencies that we didnt see it coming?"
So you want those agencies to act on every itch?
In other news today the TSA Will now expand to secure all facits of everyday life to avoid any death at all. Speed limits have been set to a max of 25 MPH (the same as Bases in Iraq from what I've been told), every commercial on TV will be a V Corps Safety Commercial, Phobition returns, Guns are banned, Transfat is banned, Troops abandon all of thier positions arround the world to help build a wall arround the US, All foods will be prepared by the government to avoid any danger whatsoever, no flights, sea cruises in or out of the US, and on and on and on....
Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern District of New York, with Attorney Jerry Leaphart:
** Dr Judy Wood, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center:
Docket No. 1:07-cv-03314-GBD Title: Dr. Judy Wood ex rel. USA vs. Applied Research Associates, Inc. et al. Judge: George B. Daniels
** Dr Morgan Reynolds, suing on behalf of the United States of America and demanding a Trial by Jury, has evidence that the Media broadcasted cartoons of an airplane hitting the South Tower:
Docket No. 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Title: Dr. Morgan Reynolds ex rel. USA vs. Science Applications International Corp. et al. Judge: George B. Daniels
PRESS RELEASE: 9/11 Qui Tam Jurisdictional Challenges Filed - 2/29/08 - Two Qui Tam cases - U.S. District Court, SDNY -- 9/11 related - One alleges Twin Towers destroyed by Directed Energy Weapons - Other alleges No Planes hit the towers - Directed energy weapons toxic effects continue at Ground Zero:
PRESS RELEASE: Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel - On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect:
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-11 11:31:35
Ever see a controlled demolition of a hotel, watch bldg 7 (the one that nothing hit)fall and then you tell me.
Where is the damage to the pentagon from the wings? Where is the rest of the aircraft? The aircraft was burnt completely, yet all the DNA evidence remained.
Interesting. Scientific fact dictates that human remains (DNA) will be destroyed and useless when exposed to the heat it takes to melt Magnesium (over 1500 degress F)
Where are all 86 security camera footage from around the pentagon?
Have you seen the flight corridor that they took to hit the pentagon, I was stationed there for 3 years, no way a guy who couldnt fly a cessna piloted a 757 through there.
I have participated in 3 aircraft crash investigations, and during those investigations, nothing is touched until properly photographed, measured, cataloged etc. Yet the Pentagon crash site was covered over with new dirt the next day.
Also I know how most think youtube is bunk, but type in Donald Rumsfeld Sept. 10, 2001. Funny how we never heard anymore about the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars the Dept of Defense could not account for, oh we were too wrapped up in the events of the following day. Has anyone in DC voluntarily revealed really bad news on a Monday? No most wait til Fri. to give the press time to bury the story or the people to cool down. Not this time, no need, the events of the following day buried that story forever. Coincidence? I don't believe in it. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, "nothing in politics happens by chance, if and when it does happen you can bet it was planned"
Research the Council on Foriegn Relations and their relation to the NWO, FED, MIC and our own government.
It is a good article indeed. I've recorded 911Coincidences from the internet, and there is no way the government can wash hands off this one.
There has to be a very good reason for postponing 911 investigation for 411 days. And even afer that, no independent panel was formed, and hundreds of questions remain unanswered.
"A story that has little ground to show for itself would only agitate the irrational truthers. This story needed to be ignored. No matter how you report on it, your credibility would be questioned because it allows for the insane, irrational, and useless technicality of truthers to come out. If you were to cover this story, you might as well cover every end-of-the-world doom prediction that some nutcase makes, every UFO sighting, every alternative medicine story, every psychic that shows up, and every creationist / intelligent design story that comes up".
That makes little sense to me. This story is credible based on the fact that the US government, along with mainstream media have long fingered Bin Laden for an alleged crime that, according to the FBI's website, the FBI are not seeking the same person for.
If MSM were that concerned about irrationality or evidence for stories prior to publication, you'd have to ask why they dedicated so many column-inches, pre-invasion, to reporting on Iraq's "imminent" threat to world peace and regional stablity along with WMDs, none of which, it transpired, existed. Consequently such reports lacked credibility, were irrational and were supported by no evidence whatsoever.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that MSM has long been in the business of making money and old-fashioned, investigative journalism that goes against the grain is too much like hard work; it's not clever, it's not popular and, most of all, it's not terribly profitable.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
