by heyjt » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:00 pm
Discrepancies In Bin Laden Confession Tape Explored<br><br>WASHINGTON, D.C. — Maher Osseiran, an independent investigator who has spent close to two years studying the 2001 Osama Bin Laden confession tape and the events surrounding its release, says that his analysis confirms what Jason Burke reported in The London Observer, three days after the tape was released: "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."<br><br>Osseiran goes on to say that his investigation and the timeline he developed shows that the taping was only one part of a two-part sting. The first part was to tape Bin Laden, the second part was to capture or eliminate him.<br><br>The failure of the second part, which is attributed to freezing rain, left the Bush administration with the fruits of the first part, the confessional tape.<br><br>Osseiran goes on to say: "As a highly sensitive intelligence material and the bi-product of a failed sting operation, by releasing the tape on Dec. 13, 2001, the Bush administration revealed to Bin Laden that he had been the subject of sting, therefore, pushing him more firmly into hiding."<br><br>Bush’s playing the tape to the world "was as good as a de facto pardon," explains Osseiran.<br><br>The investigator used statements by Saudi authorities, a detailed technical analysis of the tape, statements and footage inadvertently inserted or left in the tape, and what was leaked to the media about the tape, to develop a compelling timeline. He says his timeline and findings "contradict each and every statement made by the Pentagon," the only known U.S. branch of government that had jurisdiction over the tape.<br><br>The investigator says that the sting was actually organized prior to 9/11, according to a UPI press report on Aug. 17, 2001, from Pakistan:<br><br>"The U.S. government has requested Pakistan to provide active support for an operation inside Afghanistan to catch terrorism-suspect Osama Bin Laden, a report said Friday. The United States has also discussed with Pakistani officials the possibility of ‘using U.S. special forces’ for a sting operation inside Afghanistan."<br><br>Osseiran says that it appears that the objective of the sting operation at that time was the capture of Bin Laden, since taping of a confession would not be applicable prior to the 9/11 attacks.<br><br>After 9/11, the sting became "a two-part affair," said Osseiran. "Part one was the taping of Bin Laden describing the 9/11 attack."<br><br>Part two, to come later, "was to be his capture or elimination," said Osseiran, "but the capture did not happen, presumably because of an ice storm on the intended date. Had the capture occurred instead of or at the same time as the taping of the confession, there would have been no reason for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan."<br><br>Osseiran questions the veracity of all Pentagon reports starting with the suggestion that the taping took place on Nov. 9, 2001.<br><br>"The facts dispute this, based on the extraction of statements made by Saudi authorities and the sheikh in the tape," noted Osseiran.<br><br>"First," said Osseiran, "the visiting sheikh, Khaled Al-Harbi, to whom Bin Laden confessed, left Saudi Arabia on Sept. 21, 2001. Second, on the tape, Al-Harbi gives us five instances that corroborate the official Saudi date of Sept. 21, and two of those instances indicate that he left in a hurry as soon as travel arrangements to Afghanistan were complete. Third, on the tape, Al-Harbi also tells us how he reached Afghanistan: ‘naturally, we were smuggled through Iran.’"<br><br>"The arrival of the visiting sheikh and his team to the guesthouse was around Sept. 25, 2001. The sheikh tells us that he arrived the day prior to the meeting, which makes the taping date Sept. 26, 2001," explained Osseiran. The Pentagon’s "chosen date of Nov. 9 discredits them and can only be described as a convenient fabrication and an attempt to mislead."<br><br>After the release of the tape, journalists in the Arab world played down the significance of the video. Several Arabic news agencies questioned the authenticity of the video, which brought a strong response from U.S. President Bush who said, "This is bin Laden unedited. It’s preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored. That’s just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man."<br><br>Osseiran, however, says that a frame-by-frame analysis of the tape by a videographer with 25 years’ experience in cinematography, video, and multi-media production indicates that two different cameras, and two different individuals, contributed to the tape. "Again contradicting what the Pentagon had told us," he said.<br><br>Said Osseiran, "From the various official sources, it has been said that the taping took place in Kandahar on Nov. 9, 2001, that the tape was found in a private home in Jalalabad, and that, due to its poor quality, composition, and mishmash of topics — including the confession, the village, indoor and outdoor helicopter wreckage, and chanting — it was the work of an unknown amateur videographer who started taping Bin Laden three quarters of the way into a tape, ran out of tape, rewound it within the camera, and finished taping Bin Laden over earlier footage of a downed American helicopter."<br><br>Osseiran disputes the location of the taping since it does not track with territorial logistics of Afghanistan when compared to what was said on the tape. He also notes that various cameo appearances by Bin Laden’s children throughout the tape, including the portion that featured the visiting sheikh, plus a statement in the helicopter segment by their mentor, Mukhtar, identifying his residence, indicates that the taping of Bin Laden took place in a small village in the Ghazni province, where the Bin Laden children and their mentor lived, and where a Special Forces helicopter crashed on Nov. 2, 2001, five weeks after what Osseiran deems to be the correct date of the Bin Laden confession.<br><br>The video expert who examined the tape says that at least two cameras were used to produce the tape footage, said Osseiran. "One camera was exclusively used to tape the Bin Laden segment and that footage bears only the effects of transformation from the European video standard to the American video standard. At least one other camera was used to produce the other segments that included footage of the helicopter crash site, village, and wreckage. Only this footage bears anomalies that are textbook descriptions of artifacts caused by poor electronic transmission through either a phone line or satellite and are not the result of a camera malfunction."<br><br>"The biggest question the analysis raises," said Osseiran, "is why would only certain parts of the tape and not all bare electronic transmission artifacts and why would such transmitted footage make its way back into the camera? Governmental officials never addressed the issue of technical analysis, as if it never took place. Their explanation dealing with the poor quality of the tape was purely anecdotal."<br><br>Osseiran says the identity of the amateur videographer is Mukhtar, a young associate of Bin Laden who is trusted to run sensitive errands, "trusted enough to also double as the mentor of his young boys and lives in that same village in Ghazni."<br><br>"Mukhtar has a very distinctive taping style," said Osseiran, "as if documenting the daily life of his charge, the Bin Laden kids. He always narrates while he is taping and the kids appear prominently in those segments he taped. He is only responsible for some of the helicopter footage."<br><br>Osseiran continued, "Another person, whose style can be described as that of a voyeur, is responsible for the rest of the helicopter footage since Mukhtar was a subject in that footage, and, most importantly, a subject in the Bin Laden footage. Exposing the existence of another person responsible for the Bin Laden footage unravels the official explanation. Since Mukhtar lived in that same village where the taping took place, it is ludicrous to accept that he transmitted his own footage to himself electronically and re-introduced it into his camera."<br><br>Osseiran contends that the voyeur cameraman utilized a hidden camera in taping the Bin Laden confession.<br><br>"There are eight consecutive frames, barely a quarter of a second of play time, that would go unnoticed under normal viewing," said Osseiran. "The voyeur cameraman, caught off guard by the unexpected arrival of Bin Laden, rushed to put his turban on. He inadvertently filmed himself and gave us eight frames that are close up shots of him in the act of putting on his turban. Wrapping a turban around the head requires the use of two hands. How did this voyeur cameraman sprout a third hand that held the camera? These eight frames reinforce the idea that the camera was covert and part of a sting operation."<br><br>Osseiran continued, "Other facts supporting a concealed camera are: the total lack of eye contact with the camera, not a single instance, the many instances the camera was blocked, and the absence of any bloopers in the Bin Laden footage running 35 minutes."<br><br>"A covert camera might also explain why we only have 35 minutes out of what is a three- to four-hour visit. We only got the footage that incriminated Bin Laden. All other footage that would have easily exposed the taping as a covert operation, as compared to the hard-to-find eight frames, was edited out," he said.<br><br>Osseiran says it is likely that the covert camera operator (intelligence operative of Saudi nationality) remained and, when it was learned that Bin Laden was returning on Nov. 2, 2001, informed military officials of the opportunity for Bin Laden’s capture, even though it was a day of freezing rain and hazardous flying conditions.<br><br>"The tragic crash," he said, "apparently foiled the capture plan."<br><br>"If Bin Laden was killed or captured on Sept. 26, the date of the taping, there would have been no public support, American or otherwise, for the military operations in Afghanistan which started 10 days later," says Osseiran.<br><br>Questions have also been levied by Ed Haas in the online "Muckraker Report" as to why on the Bin Laden Most Wanted poster any direct connections with the events of Sept. 11, 2001 are not mentioned. In a report published on June 18, Haas says he contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to learn why and was told by Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, "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."<br><br>Haas goes on to say that the FBI spokesman told him, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11," with the explanation that the FBI gathers evidence, which is turned over to the Department of Justice, which then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. "He (Bin Laden) 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."<br><br>The Muckraker Report asked in its report, ...."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?"<br><br>Recently, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann (on Countdown with Keith Olbermann) ran a segment regarding the non-mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden wanted poster implying the absurdity of the non-listing.<br><br>In a later Muckraker Report, Haas noted that "there is no record whatsoever of any U.S. government official publicly declaring that the U.S. government had determined that the so-called ‘confession video’ was authentic before it was released to the U.S. media. To the contrary, independent media sources have actually done the side-by-side video comparisons of the ‘confession bin Laden’ and other confirmed footage of Osama bin Laden, and the results raise valid questions."<br><br>Haas went on to criticize The Washington Post for an article published in December 2001 that claimed the confession video was authentic, "but failed to report the names and agencies responsible for the authenticity process."<br><br>According to Osseiran, the copy of the original tape has been virtually sealed; based on failed attempts by a depository public library to receive a copy that is supposedly available to the general public for a fee of $35. Also, it is not known whether attempts are being made by the government to have it officially analyzed to determine provenance and authenticity.<br><br>Haas argues that the people should demand the U.S. government release the original copy of the video for analysis to dispell "implied references" by the mainstream media that the tape is authentic when this has not been proved, and various independent studies suggest problems with the veracity of the tape.<br> <br> <br> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=493&z=40">www.lonestaricon.com/abso...a=493&z=40</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
