What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side... I'm not convinced he was even behind the attacks we have really seen no evidence to prove it other than the gov telling us. We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.Mendenhall has already taken heavy criticism over these statements, so I thought I would even up this fight a bit. Let's start with his question, "What kind of person celebrates death?" Those giving him a hard time on this one should consider this statement from 9/11 widow and activist Kristen Breitweiser:
Forgive me, but I don't want to watch uncorked champagne spill onto hallowed ground where thousands were murdered in cold blood.Those criticizing Mendenhall for stating that he has "really seen no evidence to prove" bin Laden's guilt, better start berating the FBI as well.
And I don't want to see any ugly blood stained sheets as proof of death or justice.
Nor do I want to think about bullet-ridden corpses being dumped into the sea.
And it breaks my heart to witness young Americans cheer any death -- even the death of a horrible, evil, murderous person -- like it is some raucous tailgate party on a college campus.
As "North Cal Truth" noted on 911Blogger.com, "The FBI still has 'no evidence' directly linking Bin Laden to 9/11 and that brings up the question, 'on what grounds was this operation ordered?'" We'll get back there in a second, but first a little background.
We know from independent analysis of the bin Laden "confession" tape of 2001 that he is not confessing to the attacks, but merely discussing the event.
Then on June 11, 2007 911truth.org published an article in which Ed Hass of the now defunct website Muckraker Report had this to say:
Many 9/11 truth seekers have long ago concluded that the issue surrounding the "confession video" is that it is a fake video – that the Osama bin Laden in the video is not Osama bin Laden at all. As I have previously admitted in earlier articles, I once held the fat bin Laden belief. However, thanks to the fine work of Muckraker Report contributing writer Maher Osseiran, and my further investigation into the videotape, I am now convinced that the video is indeed authentic. See Article - Taking the fat out of the fat bin Laden confession videoBut in this same article Hass presents evidence indicating that the video was obtained through a CIA sting operation, he states:
On December 16, 2001, three days after its release, Ed Vulliamy and Jason Burke of London newspaper The Observer reported that the bin Laden videotape was the result of a CIA sting operation. Vulliamy and Burke reported:This is just as damning of a bombshell as the video being a fake!
This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani.
Consider this. If U.S. forces, as the Department of Defense claims, discovered the videotape, why wouldn’t the CIA simply respond to my FOIA request by stating that it found no records responsive to my request? If the videotape was randomly discovered, why would the CIA be involved?...
The CIA had Osama bin Laden in its sights, camera and rifle, on or about September 26, 2001 and failed to capture or kill him in favor of gaining a videotape confession of sorts to support the Bush Administration’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. If Osama bin Laden had been captured or killed on or about September 26, 2001 – there would have been no international support for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
As 911truth.org pointed out:
If true, this is an incredibly important finding, as the official story concerning the video claims the videotape was obtained by U.S. forces in Jalalabad, Afghanistan in late November 2001. For background on this story, please see Writer Claims bin Laden Confession Video Offers Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy To Go to War on Part of US and Britain, And Possible Foreknowledge of the 9/11 Attacks.The author of this piece notes:
Osseiran's analysis of the confession video indicates with a high degree of precision that the portion of the tape depicting bin Laden's discussion with Khaled Al-Harbi, the Saudi official, took place in late September, 2001, well before the US began its attack on Afghanistan. The argument for this is very strong, and includes the argument that when British Prime Minster Tony Blair spoke in late September 2001 of having been provided with "powerful and incontrovertible" evidence of bin Laden's guilt, he was referring to evidence garnered from the confession video, though he did not say so at the time.Supporting evidence for this claim also came in the form of another bombshell dropped by Ed Hass, he writes:
It is important to remember that the FBI does not consider the "confession video" as hard evidence against Osama bin Laden because the FBI says that it has "no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11". This is not hearsay. The FBI actually provided the quotes to the Muckraker Report - quotes that were independently validated by Claire Brown formerly with I.N.N. World Report. How could this video not be considered hard evidence? The only plausible explanation is that there is something damning about the video that the FBI seeks to keep from the public record. Yet it played millions of times to a worldwide audience as if it wasn’t corrupted.The debunking community latched on to latter statements made by the FBI attempting to explain the omission of 9/11 from bin Laden's list of crimes. On August 30, 2006 teamliberty.net pointed out the absurdity of this subsequent about-face:
What’s even more disturbing is that the Washington Post reportedly asked FBI spokesman Rex Tomb to explain why 9/11 wasn’t mentioned on the Osama bin Laden Most Wanted poster, but failed to ask him to explain his "No hard evidence" quote made on June 6th to the Muckraker Report and on June 7th to Claire Brown at I.N.N. World Report. Instead the Washington Post quotes Rex Tomb as saying, "There’s no mystery here. 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." Apparently Washington Post writers, Eggen and Horwitz, find this acceptable. Hopefully the readers of the Washington Post will not.What evidence had the FBI obtained between June and August 2006 to make them go from "no hard evidence" to "no mystery here"?
Think about it. Here is a man, Osama bin Laden, supposedly the most wanted terrorist in the world according to the U.S. government, the reported mastermind and person responsible for nearly 3000 deaths on 9/11, the justification for the United States launching invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; invasions that have resulted in well over 150,000 fatalities, many of the which were civilians, over 2600 U.S. military fatalities and counting, with no end in sight, 20,000 U.S. casualties, and hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars being shipped 7000 miles away into the Middle East, and the Washington Post is going to allow the FBI to get off with "There is a logic to it"?
You tell me who the real conspiracy theorists are because this is a disgrace, a discredit to the profession of journalism, and a real slap in the face to the American people.
911myths.com states that Betsy Glick in the FBI Public Affairs office told them that, "The information provided at that time by the (now retired) Investigative Publicity Unit Chief, who was not an agent nor a counterterrorism expert, does not accurately explain the situation."
Contradictory statements aside, in 2001 then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the government would soon "put out a paper ... that will describe clearly the evidence that we have linking" bin Laden to 9/11. One day later the government reneged on this pledge and no such paper has ever been offered. So it seems that the first statement from the FBI was the honest one. Bin Laden has admitted to being involved in 9/11, but just like the FBI he has made contraduictory statements and denied his guilt on three reported occasions, including once on video, but this does mean he wasn't involved. Afterall, there is circumstantial evidence against him in the form of a video showing him meeting with with some of the hijackers. And as 911myths.com points out, "Since 9/11, al-Qaeda have released footage of several of the hijackers. These include a number of video wills, where they talk about jihad and attacking America."
As blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote on January 17, 2010:
The debunkers are now saying Bin Laden is now wanted for 9/11. Indeed his Rewards for Justice wanted page does mention September 11th...The bottom line is that there is a slew of evidence indicating that the 9/11 hijackers were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified.
"Usama bin Ladin is wanted in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and for the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya."
However the key thing here is the indictments. As it goes on to say...
"The individual listed above has been indicted on the following charges:Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; and attack on a federal facility resulting in death."
I don't see "Conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens INSIDE the United States" or anything like that. So it would appear he has still not been formally indicted for 9/11. Which was our argument all along. He hasn't been indicted because there isn't any hard evidence that he was involved. Now that doesn't mean he wasn't involved (I've always been hesitant about defending Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed etc because the world isn't black or white. Just because the US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean Bin Laden, KSM, the Hijackers and Al-Qaeda weren't involved), we're just telling you what they are saying.
One piece of this evidence illustrates exactly why Mendenhall should "have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
But never mind that, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette opted instead to reprint many negative comments left for Mendenhall on Twitter, such as this one, "Are you a structural engineer now? Would love to see you spout this nonsense to a widow or orphan of 9/11."
Would NFL Hall of Famer Mark Stepnowski doing an interview alongside a mechanical engineer, one of a group of nearly 1,500 architects and engineers, who along with 9/11 family members are spearheading a campaign to raise awareness about the third skyscraper that fell that day, which wasn't hit by a plane, suffice for now?!
Update 05/04/2011: Tony Szamboti comments on Mendenhall's clarification letter:
His clarification comment was well worded and appropriate but he did not back off of his intention with his original comments, as he reiterated that they were intended to make people think. He originally provided a little prompting with the secondary comment about his problem with the demolition style collapse of the towers, and he did not back away from that here either.Related Info:
The guy is an obvious intellectual who also happens to play football, so it isn't any wonder that he has some problems with the stories we have been told about 911 given the evidence which has come to light about it
Not a Deather, but a Doubter; Still a Truther
The Death of Osama, 9/11 and the War on Terror
Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed on the Death of Osama Bin Laden
Bin Laden Didn't Destroy WTC 7!
Death of Bin Laden May Distract from a More Disturbing Story