9-11 Was an Inside Job?

[kadarre]

I know eh his ''confession'' was aired in october while he denied any involvement in the attacks in september twice. Fox was clearly lying.

[King-of-Awdal]

Definately bucnh of phsycotic arabs and we will hunt all down for killing innocent lives. u wanna kill americans kill they soldiers and leaders but killn folks tht just went to they work just shows how coward these faggots are.

[*Arabman]

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 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 openly 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” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

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

[michael_ital]

^^ Astonishing.

[*Arabman]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

"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. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

Usama Bin Laden isn't wanted in connection with 9-11.

[Padishah]

The Five Dancing Israeli's arrested on 9/11:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

On YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

Somehow, I don't buy the 'Inside Job' line. I can allow High Level complicity, wth the grounding of the Air Force on the day, but the idea came from those the 'War on Terror' benefits most, has a history of orchestrating terror for their own political ends, and has an amazing amount og access to US Intelligence and Defence information.

[FAH1223]

"They plot and plan, but verily Allah is the best of planners."

[James Dahl]

My theory about 9/11 is that it was a cooperative operation between the Chinese and al-Qaeda. Before then, there was a lot of pressure on China and it's tin-pot tyranny. 9/11 drew a lot of attention off of China.

[Padishah]

The Chinese do not benefit in any way.

The 'War on Terror' as it is currently being waged, cuts across China's oil jugular. The neo-Conservatives intend this, and Beijing is very aware of it. You'll notice that the Chinese were particularly protective of Iran during the whole nuclear crisis, flexing its muscles along with Russia on the security council. It was willing to antagonise the Americans in the UNSC in being a vocal opponent of Iranian sanctions during the nuclear weapons hoohaa.There is no longer the over-riding need to take such an antagnostic path with regars to Iran because they have signed a lucrative deal with the Saudi's, which would mean no longer havng to annoy the American ambitions in order to protect their supply of oil. The Chinese evidently felt there was no need to antagonise their main market for goods and loans; not for petty idealistic considerations.

Its seems the Chinese assume (rightly or wrongly) that the Iranians cannot block off the Straits of Hormuz, which would in itself endanger its Saudi supply of oil. The Iranian stockpile of Exocets and Russian made Sunburn missiles would be a compelling counterargument. Beijing has obviously determined the cost-benefit and seen that continued American goodwill outweights any considerations of 'if and when' to do with Hormuz and Iran, Sunburn missiles or no Sunburn.

I do hope it pays off for them.

[Gedo_Boy]

There are a lot of unanswered questions. It's best to reserve judgement b/c a lot of conspiracy theorists lose credibility when they point the finger at anything walking and that just discredits their cuase. "Half of all knowledge is to say I don't know'

It's best to say that there are unanswered questions and there is no definitive evidence incriminiating any single person/entity without a doubt.

However, criminal prosecutors always establish MOTIVE for a particular crime. What could MOTIVate certain elements within the US Govt. to manufacture 9/11.......obviously Bush had about a 7-8 year mandate to push an agenda that otherwise would have had little mainstream support in Washington..........2 wars and a blank check to do things in the world he otherwise wouldn't have had an opportunity to.

Also, an Islamic fundamentalist who knows he is going to do die the next morning does not go to a strip club for lap dances the night before. People get strung up and anxious over much simpler stuff than flying a JumboJet into 2 of the largest buildings in the world.

[Gedo_Boy]

The CHinese would have to be 3 levels below retarded to have anything even remotely to do w/ 9/11.

1. As the US economy goes, so does China's. Why bite the hand that feeds you?
2. Retaliation by the US if they found out could be catastrophic. They might as well send ballistic missles to California before having anything to do w/ 9/11.

I think Iran could cut off the Strait of Hormuz, although I'm no expert. All they would have to do is sink a few ships there, even their own would work.

As far as I know, Chinese would prefer Iranian oil over Saudi oil b/c the Saudis only take US dollars for oil whereas the Iranians take Euros as well ( I think), even forgetting about how much more politically independent Iran is. The oil-dollar standard allows the US to have broad control over the oil market and China is after diversity of energy sources. Saudi oil is oil dictated by US policy.

[*Arabman]

[My theory about 9/11 is that it was a cooperative operation between the Chinese and al-Qaeda. Before then, there was a lot of pressure on China and it's tin-pot tyranny. 9/11 drew a lot of attention off of China.]

An interesting theory.

[Grant]

The way muslims deny 9-11 amazes me. You'd think they thought it was a crime or something to be ashamed of. UBL didn't.

[Gedo_Boy]

Grant,

Again, I don't know who did it or not, but how do you explain away all the inconsistencies?

On the one hand, a 747 can take down a building the size of the WTC. Despite the fact that no steel structure has come down to a prolonged fire.

On the other hand, a 747 creates a small hole in the Pentagon and debris is picked up in the course of a day. The debris at the Pentagon wasn't even consistent w/ a 747.

[*Arabman]

[The way muslims deny 9-11 amazes me.]

It's not only Muslims who deny 9-11; non-Muslims also deny or do not believe Usama Bin Laden was behind it. 36% (with the number increasing) Americans believe Usama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11; they believe their government was behind it. It's not your typical conspiracy nut who denies or believes it; they include engineers, physicists, doctors, lawyers, professors, PhD holders, etc.