#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, NEW: The Release of Censored 2008

The Release of
Censored 2008
Top 25
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008


#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas
Student Researcher: Bianca May and Morgan Ulery
Faculty Evaluator: Ben Frymer, Ph.D.
Osama bin Laden’s role in the events of September 11, 2001 is not mentioned on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” poster.
On June 5, 2006, author Ed Haas contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to ask why, while claiming that bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the poster does not indicate that he is wanted in connection with the events of 9/11.
Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then 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 connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
Haas pauses to ask the question, “If the US 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?’” Through corporate media, the Bush administration told the American people that bin Laden was “Public Enemy Number One,” responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban, yet nearly six years later, the FBI said that it had no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
Though the world was to have been convinced by the December 2001 release of a bin Laden “confession video,” the Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks even before the tape was discovered.”
In a CNN article regarding the bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the US 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.”
Haas attempted to secure a reference to US government authentication of the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and US Congress, along with corporate media, presented the video as authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, notes Haas, 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 participants identified in the video would be indicted. The video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why, asks Haas, is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Haas strongly suggests that we begin asking questions, “The fact that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11 should be headline news around the world. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the US 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 US 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?” Haas continues. “Who is controlling the media message, and how is it that the FBI has no ‘hard evidence’ connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the US media has played the bin Laden-9/11 connection story for [six] 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?”
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”
However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.
Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping.
It is highly probable that the videotape was taped on September 26, 2001—before the US invaded Afghanistan.

*Project Censored is a media research group out of Sonoma State University which tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media.
Between 700 and 1000 stories are submitted to Project Censored each year from journalists, scholars, librarians, and concerned citizens around the world. With the help of more than 200 Sonoma State University faculty, students, and community members, Project Censored reviews the story submissions for coverage, content, reliability of sources and national significance. The university community selects 25 stories to submit to the Project Censored panel of judges who then rank them in order of importance. Current or previous national judges include: Noam Chomsky, Susan Faludi, George Gerbner, Sut Jhally , Frances Moore Lappe, Norman Solomon, Michael Parenti, Herbert I. Schiller, Barbara Seaman, Erna Smith, Mike Wallace and Howard Zinn. All 25 stories are featured in the yearbook, Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News.
In 1996 and 1997, the yearbook won the Firecracker Alternative Book Award, celebrating the best in alternative publishing. The release of Project Censored's yearbook has developed into a national alternative press event. In 2003, along with several independent national magazines, over 40 alternative newsweeklies carried the Top 10 Censored stories in metropolitan areas throughout the country, and Project Censored was featured on more than 125 independent talk radio and television shows. Throughout the next year and into the next decade, Project Censored will continue to inform the public, advocate for independent journalism, and strive to spark debate on current issues involving media monopoly.
Project Censored is a national research effort launched in 1976 by Dr. Carl Jensen, professor emeritus of Communications Studies at Sonoma State University . Upon Jensen's retirement in 1996, leadership of the project was passed to associate professor of sociology and media research specialist, Dr. Peter Phillips.

Thanks Joe

Peter Phillips has stuck his neck out, and he's taken undeserved hits for his support of good 911 reporting such as this phoney Bin Laden video.

Good work, PC. keep the interest in this story up and work the angles. One big thing cracks, and the entire house of nasty cards will soon come tumbling down.

Bizarre conclusions...

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping.
It is highly probable that the videotape was taped on September 26, 2001—before the US invaded Afghanistan.

1: This is silly, the man doesn't resemble Bin Laden and Bin Laden denied involvement in 911, even condemned it in a newspaper article)

2: The muckraker report protects the zionists (cia), the no 1 benefitters from 911.

Bizarre conclusion

Why would Haas offer an opinion about the authenticity of what, to anyone who has bothered to watch it, appears to be a fake? It looks completely staged and many have pointed out that Fat OBL on that tape wears a gold ring and writes with his right hand, but isn't OBL left handed?

Haas has not shown an interest in protecting zionists, the CIA in the past--not to my knowledge. I don't know what FH is talking about here.

However, I don't understand why Haas has made assertions about things that we cannot easily determine because we don't have access to the tape in question. But certainly, on the surface, it appears fake, not authentic.

The "Fatty" part of the video was long ago debunked

Bin Laden appears fat because of the PAL video transfer. This was thoroughly explained long ago. The Muckracker reflects this work.

Just because the "fatty" element has been debunked does not mean the video is legit, of course. The video may be a fake, but not because the image of Bin Laden looks fat.

A report in the Guardian suggested the video was a sting operation, for example.

The timing of the video, and the fact that Bin Laden didn't release it himself, and the fact that Bin Laden denied any role in 9/11 on three occasions, all suggest the video is highly dubious and certainly not a smoking gun piece of evidence.

Wo there, not so fast!

The claim that this has been "conclusively debunked" is one person's opnion. I have viewed the "taking the fat out of fatty bin laden" stuff and I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the whole thing can be explained by this NTSC > PAL business.

So, for me at least it has not been "conclusively debunked".

Question: why use such adamant language on a subject which is so fluid and open to debate?

Editor - www.911oz.com

TV systems

I converted a video of myself from pal to ntsc and believe it or not, I looked like Bin Laden!
(come on guys...)


And has been pointed out previously when this claim has been made, making someone's face appear wider shouldn't have any effect, for example, on the ratio of their nose to the rest of their face. If that were Osama, then his nose should not have appeared any broader, relative to the rest of his face, than in footage and photos where his face isn't as wide. The proportions should have remained the same.

That's BS

"Pal video transfer" did no such thing, it wouldn't make him shorter, his face fatter, nose different, and certainly wouldn't make him write with his other hand.

The fatty Bin Laden tape is exactly what it is a very poor fake and not a damn thing has been "debunked" about it.

The one on the left is an imposter...


"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Possible 911 shirt : is Bin Laden 911 innocent ?

Herblay FRANCE


we know already, it's not a question anymore

The sign "Is Ben Laden 911 innocent?' is very provocative !

Perhaps but twice I carried a notice with this image on it and I had violent reactions from the public who hate Ben Laden. Manage to calm them down once I explained it to them.

This sign is very provocative even though just. Try it out yourself and you will be surprised by the public reaction.



Ooh I do believe you.

Many people still haven't looked at the facts so there is a lot of work left for the truth movement.

Most don't care at all

about "facts" they have "belief & faith" that Bin Laden is guilty and nothing will change what is left of their mind.

Faith against facts is not so easy !

Herblay FRANCE

Bonsoir ,

Faith against facts is not so easy ! This is what I tried to say here on 911blogger some time ago and it did not fall so well.




I didn't see much

that didn't "fall so well" in that thread.

and BTW I have researched religion for over 30 years, Christianity mostly although had to dabble in Judaism & Islam and Hinduism & ancient Egyptian quite a bit also since they are ALL related
and from what I can gather there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any kind that ANY such person as "Jesus" ever existed in any form.
Certainly not as any "Son of Man" "Sun of God" "Messiah" or whatever mythical version of your choosing , there is a slight possibility there could have been a model for which this character may have been taken from, such as maybe "Apollonius of Tyana" but that is about it.
There is ZERO contemporary evidence for any Jesus of Nazareth, so it is highly unlikely that he really existed.

and you are right people that believe things based on blind faith are the problem.

Good provocative vs. Bad provocative

Unfortunately, I think this is provocative in a bad way. For people who are not familiar with 9/11 Truth at all, this is just confusing. It quickly leads to anger (as you yourself already experienced) and a closed mind. You may have talked a couple people down, but you also may have turned off dozens of others who never approached you.

Just my opinion, of course.


Yeah I have to agree

Maybe go with something a little more humorous like...


"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

No sorry but 911 and Bin Laden is a serious matter


Sorry but 911 and Bin Laden is a serious matter ! *

I will not do Bin Laden's propaganda and that is why I have deliberately put his image in such poor quality.

Yours John

Behind The Curve

We need to put matters into perspective.

Ed Haas' story came out in 2006, which means it should have made the 2007 list.

Two months after Ed's story, "Osama's Confession; Osama's Reprieve" came out and ever since Ed Haas and I hooked up and today I consider him a great friend.

We also collaborated, Ed is like a bull, goes head to head with the guys in authority, I am like a bulldog, once I get a hold of something, I don't let go.

Many articles have come out since, written by Ed or myself, unfortunately, Project Censored are like a year or two behind and don't have the capability to deal with complex stories.

In early 2007, I wrote a piece, published on the Muckraker, "Is it high treason or just a simple case of dereliction of duty?". One would think such a story would make it on Project Censored 2008 list.

I did get a communication from them after they made the decision not to include it in the 2008 list. The reason was, we don't have the manpower to work on it. I was also asked what I consider defensive questions posed to justify the exclusion. I thought they were to most stupid questions on the topic I ever heard and could not believe a scholar was asking them.

Although such questions might have been considered naive during the evaluation process, they would have been answered promptly. But they were unacceptable after the fact since they reflected a mindset that is neither academic nor fair.

To include early reports by Ed Haas that are in line to what had developed as acceptable theory to the larger portions of the 911 truth movement while excluding later reports by Ed Haas, based on the same findings, that are contrary can only be considered cherry picking. Unfortunately, it is a phenomena that inflicts many on left, right, and in the middle of the political spectrum.

Ultimately, the biggest loser is Project Censored since it impacts their credibility and betrays their mission which is to bring to the public at large a truth they would not get otherwise.

In peace,
Maher Osseiran

Anyone that views the

"Fatty Bin Laden tape" and sees it as Bin Laden is one of 3 possibilities.

1. A complete faux noise watching, knuckle dragging, inbred freaking idiot.

2. Blind

3. Complicit in the lie.

What is almost as sad as the fact that approx. 60+% of this country falls into one of these 3 categories is that the CIA is so incompetent & bumbling that this is the best they could manage to do.

Project Censored Delivers!

Project Censored delivers another big story for the 9/11 movement. They made three critical points: 1) Bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted Page doesn't mention 9/11. 2) FBI states the reason why is because "there's no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. 3) Bin Laden has never been indicted for 9/11 by the Department of Justice.

They could have also mentioned that no white paper has ever been issued by our government proving Bin Laden's guilt or the identities of the hijackers, despite the fact that Colin Powell promised one would be forthcoming when he was Secretary of State.

Despite the fact that it was a 2006 story, it is still a nice follow up to last year's story about BYU physicist Steven Jones and his findings. Considering the credibility that Project Censored has with progressives, it should help create more inroads for our movement.

Let's demand that AlterNet feature this story. They have been showing some willingness to cover 9/11 criticism as of late.

Tell them you would consider making a donation if they would cover stories pertinent to 9/11 truth.

I thought this article was great until the last paragraph

"Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video. The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation. The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic, they arranged the taping."

I find the conclusion that the video is authentic really disapointing and counter-productive. I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion when everything else points to the video being fake!!

What is the point of this? Help!

And please explain the nature of this "elaborate CIA sting operation" ... I am imagining the kind of sting operation often used by police to get confessions - using informants or hidden cameras... is this what Ed Haas is saying took place? If so, is he asserting that the "confession" (or admission) is genuine? If the answer is "yes" then I am doubly and triply confused, because I thought the whole thrust of the article was to demonstrate that the confession was not genuine and therefore could not be used as evidence in an indictment.

I don't think that the fact that it may have been a sting operation would make the evidence inadmissable, because, as I said, this type of thing is often used in civilian crime investigations.

I really wish that the article did not have that paragraph tacked on to it, because as it reads it is only going to confuse people and muddy the waters. Otherwise it is very good.

It is the kind of article that people new to 9/11 truth should read - minus that last para. What a pity.

Editor - www.911oz.com

Good Reporters Report Where The Evidence Takes Them.

I am very sorry you are disappointed but a reporter does not report with the people's expectations in mind.

A good reporter reports where the evidence takes him and the evidence indicates that the taping was the result of a sting operation run by American intelligence with the help of Saudi intelligence.

Do you want Ed Haas to tell you otherwise so you won't be disappointed.

I strongly suggest you go to the following page on Ed Haas's website

There, you will find more than a year's worth of research into the tape.

In peace,
Maher Osseiran

Bias Is Intrinsic to All Reporting


We all know that every reporter is biased by her preconceptions. Your line sounds like something CNN would say, tongue in cheek.

There is is no such thing as reporting "just the facts". Every perception is also a judgement. One of the most dubious claims a journalist can make is that they are without bias.

So again, I ask why does this story promote the "elaborate sting operation" thesis without even touching on the actual mechanism of this sting oepration and wheher or not the "confession" so extracted was genuine (in the sense that it was believed to be true by the person who said it).

Surely this is the most important, substantive issue here?

Editor - www.911oz.com

FBI answer...

I also called the FBI headquarters and asked why their website did not mention anything about 9/11 on the Bin Laden page.

The woman at the central switchboard answered: "Maybe it hasen't been posted yet"....

This was in september 2006, five years later....................

Good job...

... of checking this with FBI yourself.

Personally, I am very suspicious of the name Rex Tomb. Sounds more like a movie character. Does that person even exist? I tried to do some search on FBI website but no such name surfaced. If he was in any kind of top-level position (even if it was a year ago), you would think that there would be at least one reference on one webpage... Nothing!

I was wondering if any other journalist has bothered to call in with a similar question and gotten hold of any higher-level PR personnel? I think it is very unlikely that ordinary people would get past a "woman at the switchboard".

Rex Tomb of the FBI...

... can easily be found in several articles on the net.

Maybe just bought off...

The Muckraker Report believes that while the videotape is indeed authentic, it was the result of an elaborate CIA sting operation.

Maybe it was the result of an "elaborate pay-off operation" instead.

There is not much hard evidence of Bin Laden's conversion from friend to foe in the first place. Besides, what would be easier to accomplish: an elaborate sting operation where throats might have easily been slit, or a promise to "never find" him and a million bucks for a dog and pony show?

Personally, I still lean towards the video being a hoax because of the other problems besides "fatty" face -- jewelry and right-handed writing...

Project Censored partnered with...


http://Green960.com - http://AirAmerica.com - http://QuakeRadio.com

Partnership with Project Censored. Stay tuned....

"The important thing is to not stop questioning" - Einstein
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
Many hands make light work!
RRREMA=realize, recognize, reconcile, educate, motivate, activate