White House says: Bin Laden not involved in 9/11

[yodajazz]

There is someone who sends me tons of internet news, mostly related to my political views. But here is some news I did not know, that raises more questions than is informs. On September 10th, at a White House news briefing White House news Secretary Dana Perino, said that Osama Bin Laden was not the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. According to her, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed was the master mind, and he is already in jail. But according to her, Bin Laden is acknowledged as the head of the Al Queda network, and reportedly told his lieutenants to plan attacks on their own. So then he would have some indirect responsibility. Here is a direct link to Perino discussing Bin Laden. http://www.atlargely.com/2008/09/911-it-was-the.html

But this is not the first time this information has been discussed. Here is a quote from a Dick Cheney interview in 2006: "We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
I ran across that a couple of months ago. Interestingly, the same day I ran across the Dick Cheney quote, I ran across an official US government information page which said that Bin Laden had direct knowledge of the attacks, and gave me the impression that he was directly responsible. If I got the right impression, then both versions could not be true.

Another fact that points to him not being involved, was that I read recently that George Bush did not mention Bin Laden in his state of the Union speech just four months after 9/11. At a later date, when Bush was asked directly about Bin Laden, he said that he did not give him that much thought. Most people did think Bush’s comment was strange, assuming that Bin Laden was believed by most people to be responsible for the deaths of 4,000 Americans. One article said that 9/11 was not mentioned on the wanted poster of Bin Laden put out by the CIA. http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/09/white-house-cla.html. And neither was it mentioned on a FBI wanted poster, according to the comments on another article. According to the comments the FBI also claimed they had no direct evidence. And someone in the comments mentioned that there was a video released to the public that they said Bin Laden admitted to planning the attacks. I do remember seeing it now. But both cannot be true, that he admitted on a video and the FBI says there is no evidence.

I am not seeking answers from forum members for the many questions it raises. I thought I would share something that seems like news to me, but not the mainstream media.

[Stoked]

There is someone who sends me tons of internet news, mostly related to my political views. But here is some news I did not know, that raises more questions than is informs. On September 10th, at a White House news briefing White House news Secretary Dana Perino, said that Osama Bin Laden was not the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. According to her, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed was the master mind, and he is already in jail. But according to her, Bin Laden is acknowledged as the head of the Al Queda network, and reportedly told his lieutenants to plan attacks on their own. So then he would have some indirect responsibility. Here is a direct link to Perino discussing Bin Laden. http://www.atlargely.com/2008/09/911-it-was-the.html

But this is not the first time this information has been discussed. Here is a quote from a Dick Cheney interview in 2006: "We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
I ran across that a couple of months ago. Interestingly, the same day I ran across the Dick Cheney quote, I ran across an official US government information page which said that Bin Laden had direct knowledge of the attacks, and gave me the impression that he was directly responsible. If I got the right impression, then both versions could not be true.

Another fact that points to him not being involved, was that I read recently that George Bush did not mention Bin Laden in his state of the Union speech just four months after 9/11. At a later date, when Bush was asked directly about Bin Laden, he said that he did not give him that much thought. Most people did think Bush’s comment was strange, assuming that Bin Laden was believed by most people to be responsible for the deaths of 4,000 Americans. One article said that 9/11 was not mentioned on the wanted poster of Bin Laden put out by the CIA. http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/09/white-house-cla.html. And neither was it mentioned on a FBI wanted poster, according to the comments on another article. According to the comments the FBI also claimed they had no direct evidence. And someone in the comments mentioned that there was a video released to the public that they said Bin Laden admitted to planning the attacks. I do remember seeing it now. But both cannot be true, that he admitted on a video and the FBI says there is no evidence.

I am not seeking answers from forum members for the many questions it raises. I thought I would share something that seems like news to me, but not the mainstream media.

It's obvious Yodajazz... Dick Cheney said that because he knows it was actually George Bush who was the mastermind behind 9/11. The rest easily falls into place... blaming it on Al Queda so he could go into Iraq and finish off the job his daddy didnt, to own the oil fields of Iraq. He wanted to increase the cost of oil so his pals could make more money, to start a war so his pals could make more money, and to kill 4000 of our troops because... well, arent most of our troops non-white?. He wasnt finished there either, because he created and sent hurricane Katrina directly to New Orleans to force out all the blacks so whitey could take over. When it wasnt going as well as he hoped, he blew up the dyke and flushed them, just like you flush a toilet. And of course, he withheld emergency help to kill as many more blacks as he could.

It all makes sense to me. I am not sure why you even posted.

[yodajazz]

A WhiteHouse spokes person said on September 10, 2008. Most people believe that Bin Laden was directly involved, so it qualifies as news.

[PapaGrande]

There is someone who sends me tons of internet news, mostly related to my political views. But here is some news I did not know, that raises more questions than is informs. On September 10th, at a White House news briefing White House news Secretary Dana Perino, said that Osama Bin Laden was not the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. According to her, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed was the master mind, and he is already in jail. But according to her, Bin Laden is acknowledged as the head of the Al Queda network, and reportedly told his lieutenants to plan attacks on their own. So then he would have some indirect responsibility. Here is a direct link to Perino discussing Bin Laden. http://www.atlargely.com/2008/09/911-it-was-the.html

But this is not the first time this information has been discussed. Here is a quote from a Dick Cheney interview in 2006: "We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
I ran across that a couple of months ago. Interestingly, the same day I ran across the Dick Cheney quote, I ran across an official US government information page which said that Bin Laden had direct knowledge of the attacks, and gave me the impression that he was directly responsible. If I got the right impression, then both versions could not be true.

Another fact that points to him not being involved, was that I read recently that George Bush did not mention Bin Laden in his state of the Union speech just four months after 9/11. At a later date, when Bush was asked directly about Bin Laden, he said that he did not give him that much thought. Most people did think Bush’s comment was strange, assuming that Bin Laden was believed by most people to be responsible for the deaths of 4,000 Americans. One article said that 9/11 was not mentioned on the wanted poster of Bin Laden put out by the CIA. http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2008/09/white-house-cla.html. And neither was it mentioned on a FBI wanted poster, according to the comments on another article. According to the comments the FBI also claimed they had no direct evidence. And someone in the comments mentioned that there was a video released to the public that they said Bin Laden admitted to planning the attacks. I do remember seeing it now. But both cannot be true, that he admitted on a video and the FBI says there is no evidence.

I am not seeking answers from forum members for the many questions it raises. I thought I would share something that seems like news to me, but not the mainstream media.

Do you even read the stuff you are posting???

From the same interview:

"Q Okay. A couple of things, I think a couple of minutes ago -- I want to make sure -- you said Osama bin Laden wasn't involved in 9/11 planning. You meant Saddam Hussein, correct? That Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. Yes, sir.

Q Okay.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thanks for straightening that out. I didn't realize I'd done that. (Laughter.)

Q Yes. Well, otherwise we'd have a whole lot more stories to deal with.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. All right. Well, I appreciate it. "

I know you all just love to think that Bush, Cheney and ExxonMobile masterminded 9/11 but it just defies basic logic, sorry.

What they are guilty of is having a faulty world view and having their judgment clouded by their ideology. They had a conclusion and then went out and looked for evidence to support it, maybe even fabricated a little. In the end the war in Iraq fits into the neo-con world view without any conspiracies.

I know you want so badly for these 9/11 conspiracies to be true, but so much of it makes no sense at all. Case in point, 9/11 missing from Bin Laden's FBI Wanted Poster. OK, so conspiracy nuts claim this is "proof" that Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11 and somehow this supports their theories of an "inside job". Lets just use a tiny bit of logic, so Bush masterminded 9/11 so the FBI doesn't put that on Bin Laden's poster???? This makes no sense, why would the FBI leave it off if it was a conspiracy? Are you saying the FBI is not "in on it", or are you saying that they are so honest and above the corruption of the Bush Super Plan? Or did they just not get the memo? Seriously, use your brain a little.

Here is the FBI's response for why 9/11 is not listed on his Wanted Poster, from a real news organization and not some stupid blog comments:

Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html)

"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.

"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."

Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.

[yodajazz]

Actually I had not read that version. But what about the White House spokes person on 9/10/08? Or the fact that Bin Laden is not under indictment for a direct relation to 9/11?

Also the main reason why I think the story is important, it is that the American public has been misled as far as who is directly responsible for the deaths, again. Remember that there was some kind of association before that Saddam Hussien was involved in 9/11?

When you say the neo con view was right, I am not sure if you mean that you approve of the action that resulted from their view. the invasion of Iraq. As outlined in the views of PNAC, prior to 9/11, there were some basic flaws. They miscalulated the negative consequences that happen from invading foreign countries without sufficient justification. It was a lot easier to do such things 100 years ago.

In other words; whatever the neo cons were right about, the action was/is morally wrong, and that brings negative consequences. Even though large amounts of the American public may ignore the facts, morally wrong actions creates enemies and numerous other negative by products.

[PapaGrande]

I guess I'm confused as to what your point is. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the one who planned 9/11 in detail, at least according to his confession, Bin Laden is the head of al-Qaeda but that doesn't mean he was intimately involved in all the planing of al-Qaeda attacks. Remember al-Qaeda is a group that has decentralized leadership and independent cells. The government has also said that Bin Laden's ability to actually lead al-Qaeda has been severely diminished since 9/11. Capturing him would be more a symbolic victory than tactical victory. I'm not really sure we know how involved exactly Bin Laden was in the detailed planning of 9/11. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted to being the main (or "master") planner, maybe his is lying, maybe he was tortured, who knows, but I'm not really sure what difference it makes.

I think the reason the media and public focus on Bin Laden so much is, i hate to say it, but people are dumb and need things dumbed down as much as possible.

I do not agree with the neo-con world view, nor do I agree with all the Democrats who seem to be saying that invading Iraq was wrong because we didn't find WMDs, my opinion is that invading Iraq was wrong even if we did find WMDs. BTW we know Saddam had WMDs at some time because the US sold them to him, and then we turned our back as he used them on Iran and the kurds. The link from Saddam to 9/11 was always very week, so I also reject any politician who used that as justification in their support and/or authorization of the war.

[El Nino]

His "tortured confession" you mean??

[PapaGrande]

His "tortured confession" you mean??

Maybe, we don't really know what happened. It doesn't change my mind, invading Iraq was wrong.

[El Nino]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

WOW!

[evilernie]

no kidding..

[BrendaQG]

Long time no type.

It does not surprise me that is the case. To understand the way Al Quaeda works you have to under stand a bit of Muslim-Arab history.

Back in the early days most of the Caliph's of Islam would command their generals very little. They would choose a good general, set a broad goal for him, outline the resources he has to accomplish this task, then let him do whatever it took to achieve that goal. They would issue this order in the form of a Fatwa, thus making it their religious duty to carry out the order successfully. (Historically such an approach gives better results.

It would be like.

In the name of Allah. Most beneficent. Ever merciful.

I Caliph Umar Ibn al-kattab command you to glorify the name of Islam by the conquest of Egypt. I grant you X camels, Y men, and Z Dinars of gold.
......

Or some such.

Well Binladen and his partner Mullah Mohamed Umar considered themselves leaders equal to say a Caliph, and his grand viser. (Recall the first days after 911 the Taliban diplomat who referred to Umar as "Emir ul-moeimeen" That is a title along with "Kalifatul rasul Allah"claimed by Caliphs. Which shows how insane Mullah Umar must be!) KSM in their POV is then a general.

So why Bin laden and Umar did not know the details, they were the prime movers. Bin laden suggested and Omar agreed that the Twin towers and other places (i.e. the Sears Tower which was scratched for some reason.) should be targeted for destruction. They did not know details. But it was their idea just as much as conquest of the Persians was the Idea of Caliph Abu Bakr.

Basically such a command structure is not uncommon in the Islamic world. (In the better ran western millitaries this is also the model. FDR tells Eisenhower to conquere Europe and let's him loose. Hitler micromanages the Russian fron't... and looses part of Germany forever. Think about it.)

[El Nino]

Total BS

[BrendaQG]

Total BS

JIC that's directed at my post.

Nope it's a well doccumented fact that Bin Laden and Mulla Umar see themselves as legit leaders of a new Muslim Calpihate and will do anything to bring that about. By trying to cause a "war of civilizeations" they hope to galvanize all of the Muslim countries into just such an entity.

[El Nino]

you are 100% wrong

[hippifried]

Are either of them still alive?

[El Nino]

no

[hippifried]

no
How do you know? Did you try & collect the reward? :lol:

[BrendaQG]

you are 100% wrong

Sorry but Nino I think I know a bit more about how those people think than you do.

You see as far as they are concerned even if UBL and Umar did not know the fine details of the 9/11 plan. It was their concept to launch such a massive attack. They are still, from a muslim perspective, just as responsible as KSM.

Back to my historical analogy. Hirohito did not know the details of Perl Harbor, but he was no less responsible for the action taken in his name. Understand?

[El Nino]

Brenda, how dare you assume that you are better versed in any such discipline, without an empirical basis of reasoning. I strongly disagree with you regarding this exact matter. 911, had nothing to do with what you think it might. Your beliefs sit strongly with the side of smoke and mirrors. Radical Islamic fascists probably didn't order a Norad and Northcom standdown now, did they?

[hippifried]

I'm not fully convinced that the 9/11 conspiracy was any bigger than the 19 guys who hijacked the planes.

[yodajazz]

I'm not fully convinced that the 9/11 conspiracy was any bigger than the 19 guys who hijacked the planes.

Let’s put disbelief aside for a moment, and say the White House version of everything is completely true. They have the mastermind behind 9/11. Don’t the families of the victims deserve some kind of public trial, of even just a statement from him of why he felt justified to make such a plan? What about accomplices? No matter what his viewpoint, is the relatives of the 9/11 would have a better understand of the world that caused the death of their loved ones.

I have a strong feeling that he cannot be allowed to speak, because he would reveal a world more complex, than our simple views of ‘terrorism’. I read somewhere that the Pakistani intelligence organization was directly involved, in the transfer of monies to the hijackers. Yet the US has used Pakistani intelligence in the past to further its goals; namely to channel monies to the Muslim fighters who were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

And then again if the 9/11 Truth Movement is right, there would be a good reasons as to why the ‘mastermind’ is not allowed to give his version publicly.




no
How do you know? Did you try & collect the reward? :lol:

Something I read recently claimed that Bin Laden died in December 2001. In January of 2002, Bush did not mention him in his State of the Union speech, according to the article. This was just four months after 9/11.

[yodajazz]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

WOW!

I was able to watch about half of it. They make a pretty convincing case.