11 september 2001 (50)

Ik zet het allemaal nog even op een rijtje:

11 september 2001 (48)

Geachte collega's,

Voor degenen die rotsvast geloven in de juistheid van de officieel gepropageerde complottheorie betreffende 11 september 2001.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - 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] 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” 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.

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. http://teamliberty.net

NOTES

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3184 [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1711874.stm [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/ [Accessed June 5, 2006]

Comments section added on July 23, 2009

Zie: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

11 september 2001 (49)

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2009/07/11-september.html

De NRC:

Bin Laden vond tien vliegtuigen te veel voor 11/9

artikel | Maandag 22-09-2003 | Sectie: Buitenland | Pagina: 5

WASHINGTON, 22 SEPT., De eerste ideeën voor wat de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 zouden worden, werden in 1996 aan Osama bin Laden gepresenteerd. Dat heeft Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, brein van de zelfmoordaanslagen met vier vliegtuigen in New York en in Washington, aan zijn Amerikaanse ondervragers verteld

http://archief.nrc.nl/?modus=l&text=osama+bin+laden&hit=710&set=2

Wat moet de NRC-lezer hier allemaal van denken? Terwijl de 'kwaliteitskrant' zich toch afficheert als de 'slijpsteen voor de geest'. Zal de NRC deze valse informatie nu ruim drie jaar later eindelijk eens gaan weerleggen door te melden dat de FBI 'geen harde bewijzen' heeft?Ik blijf benieuwd.

Nog een ander punt. Voor mijn boek 11 september. het keerpunt citeerde ik op dinsdag 4 oktober 2001 het volgende bericht uit de Volkskrant: 'Nederland heeft dinsdag in de NAVO-raad vergeefs bedenktijd gevraagd om het bewijsmateriaal over de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de aanslagen in de VS te bestuderen. NAVO-ambassadeur Patijn kreeg nul op het rekest. Volgens diplomaten in Brussel beschikken de VS niet over harde bewijzen tegen Bin Laden, hooguit over sterke aanwijzingen... Patijn vroeg dinsdag op verzoek van minister Van Aartsen van Buitenlandse Zaken een uur bedenktijd nadat de Amerikaanse gezant Frank Taylor de NAVO-raad bewijzen had overlegd van de betrokkenheid van Bin Laden bij de terroristische aanslagen. Ook enkele andere landen, waaronder Luxemburg, vroegen om een "stilteprocedure" ... Volgens goed geinformeerde bronnen wees NAVO-chef Robertson het verzoek meteen af met de woorden dat een NAVO-bondgenoot om onvoorwaardelijk vertrouwen vroeg en dat dit onverwijld gehonoreerd moest worden... Het "bewijs" tegen Bin Laden dat Taylor de NAVO-raad presenteerde, zou in een rechtszaal nooit standhouden... Dit stellen diplomaten en ambtenaren bij de NAVO en ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken die de presentatie bijwoonden... Bij de NAVO brengen diplomaten daar tegenin dat "we op dit moment geen rechtzaak aan het voeren zijn. Dus juridisch spijkerhard hoeft het ook niet te zijn. We staan voor een politiek besluit, dat politieke argumenten behoeft. En die hebben we voldoende gekregen," meent een diplomaat ... Dat is ook het verweer van de Amerikaanse regering. "Het is niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren," zegt een Amerikaanse functionaris... De Amerikaanse regering wil de beschikbare gegevens niet openbaar maken,' aldus de Volkskrant destijds.

Ik schreef erbij: 'Met andere woorden: om 1 misdadiger op te hangen of te vergassen moet de VS een "spijkerhard juridisch bewijs" overleggen van de schuld van de ter dood veroordeelde, maar om een heel land te kunnen bombarderen is "het niet terecht om een puur juridisch criterium te hanteren". In 1 vergadering is de mensheid weer terug bij af en kan het zwaar bevochten internationaal recht terzijde worden geschoven. En men is er nog eerlijk over ook, het argument is domweg dat "we voor een politiek besluit staan," en daarbij staat het recht alleen maar in de weg,' aldus de tekst in mijn boek.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief_gratis/article905961.ece/NAVO-chef_dwingt_steun_aan_VS

Kortom: Waarom zit het Nederlandse leger in Afghanistan?

Zie: http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2007/05/laura-starink.html

Waarom onderzoeken de Nederlandse commerciele massamedia dit niet? Er worden miljarden aan belastinggeld aan dit zinloze geweld besteed. Me dunkt dat dit toch een doorslaggevend argument is voor Nederlanders die altijd bang zijn dat er teveel geld wordt uitgegeven aan buitenlanders, of ze nu vluchteling zijn of niet.

Oke, zelfs de grootste dwaas kan zien dat er iets niet klopt. Het handelt hier niet om een futiliteit, om een akkefietje, om een detail. Het betreft hier de kern van ons systeem. De parlementaire democratie, voor wat het waard is, is bedrogen op grote schaal. Tienduizenden mensen zijn als gevolg van die leugen vermoord of zijn zwaar verminkt geraakt, het kost de belastingbetaler miljarden om de leugen in stand te houden. Iedereen speelt het spel mee, de politici, de generaals, de ambtenaren, het bedrijfsleven, en niet te vergeten, de meesten van mijn collega's, die uit lafheid, uit financiele noodzaak of uit onnozelheid het spel meespelen. Tot straks de wal het schip gaat keren, want 1 ding kan geen van de spelers veranderen, en dat is het natuurlijke proces van oorzaak en gevolg. De corruptie gaat net zolang door tot het zichzelf geheel uitgehold heeft. Zo is het altijd geweest.

Ik vertrek maandag met mijn 19-jarige zoon Dylan naar New York en Washington, naar het centrum van de moderne macht. Ik wil hem de symbolen van de macht laten zien, het machtsspel zelf heeft hij inmiddels al door. De symbolen van de macht, want de macht kan niet zonder symbolen. De machtelozen wel, de machtigen nooit. Sterker nog: een deel van de macht ontleent de macht juist aan die symbolen. Bij omwentelingen gaan dan ook altijd de symbolen van de macht er het eerst aan. Ik zal een tijdje weg zijn, ik wens u een prettige zomer.

September 1, 1939
by W. H. Auden
I sit in one of the dives On Fifty-second Street Uncertain and afraid As the clever hopes expire Of a low dishonest decade: Waves of anger and fear Circulate over the bright And darkened lands of the earth, Obsessing our private lives; The unmentionable odour of death Offends the September night. Accurate scholarship can Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago made A psychopathic god: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return. Exiled Thucydides knew All that a speech can say About Democracy, And what dictators do, The elderly rubbish they talk To an apathetic grave; Analysed all in his book, The enlightenment driven away, The habit-forming pain, Mismanagement and grief: We must suffer them all again. Into this neutral air Where blind skyscrapers use Their full height to proclaim The strength of Collective Man, Each language pours its vain Competitive excuse: But who can live for long In an euphoric dream; Out of the mirror they stare, Imperialism's face And the international wrong. Faces along the bar Cling to their average day: The lights must never go out, The music must always play, All the conventions conspire To make this fort assume The furniture of home; Lest we should see where we are, Lost in a haunted wood, Children afraid of the night Who have never been happy or good. The windiest militant trash Important Persons shout Is not so crude as our wish: What mad Nijinsky wrote About Diaghilev Is true of the normal heart; For the error bred in the bone Of each woman and each man Craves what it cannot have, Not universal love But to be loved alone. From the conservative dark Into the ethical life The dense commuters come, Repeating their morning vow; "I will be true to the wife, I'll concentrate more on my work," And helpless governors wake To resume their compulsory game: Who can release them now, Who can reach the deaf, Who can speak for the dumb? All I have is a voice To undo the folded lie, The romantic lie in the brain Of the sensual man-in-the-street And the lie of Authority Whose buildings grope the sky: There is no such thing as the State And no one exists alone; Hunger allows no choice To the citizen or the police; We must love one another or die. Defenceless under the night Our world in stupor lies; Yet, dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame.