br311
08.06.06, 11:32
Ale sie usmialem... Dzieci w przedszkolu wiedza ze to Osama zorganizowal 9/11
natomiast FBI twierdzi ze nie ma na to dowodow. Dlatego na liscie "Ten most
wanted terrorists" nie ma wzmianki o 9/11
www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Wiecej:
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.
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 attacks.
In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release,
President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he
knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also
knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were
going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to
me.”
In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military
campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.”
Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing
people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the
September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be
in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the
Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so
why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government
authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is
conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the
dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t
the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI
is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video
of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution
operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal
grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and
if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a
conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video”
not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
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?
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