If Bin Laden didn't do 9/11 and neither did Sadam then who did?

Question

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, [phone], 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.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

The 9/11 commission, appointed by Bush, presented its final report a year ago, saying that Osama bin Laden had been "willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq" at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader "had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."

The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any "contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," it said.

President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

Answer 1

I know who did it.

I'm not telling either.

Answer 2

whoever is gaining from the aftermath of 9/11 are the ones who planned the whole thing. that would for sure include military corporations. the same people who planned the Iran/contra scandal! if bin laden was involved he was most likely used and enabled to implement their plan by somehow planting such and idea in his mind and he may even think that he did it himself too even-though he was set up! it is a sure thing that he couldn't get away with such a plan without being noticed by the intelligence service of Israel, USA and England! specially when they were warned about some Arabs receiving trainings as a pilot, etc! no way at all ! peace

Answer 3

1. The 9/11 Commission was not "apointed" by Bush. Bush signed the law that authorized Congress to appoint non-partisan members of the Commission. It did so, not Bush

2. The fact that Osama is not on the FBI most-wanted list means nothing. You're created a huge theory based upon this one trivial fact. Osama is a military target & as such is not an FBI target.

3. The Commission said Al Qaeda did & everyone who matters agrees with that.
------------------------
To address some points raised here:

1. The steel at the WTC was not rushed away.

ImplosionWorld, the leading demolition journal in the world, has personally verified that the steel was not “rushed away” and has stated so in print for all to see.

See Point 6 in http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

You will find a complete description of the way the steel was handled. Nothing unusual occurred. The Senior Editor along with Protec corporation stands behind this fact and their integrity is without question.

2. Professor Jones has been denounced by his own University, BYU (Brigham Young University).

Jones is a member of the physics dept. & his research is in “cold fusion,” an area that’s not related to civil engineering.

The correct department for analysis of the twin-tower collapse is engineering, not physics.

The engineering dept at Jones OWN University (BYU) has heavily criticized Jones.

D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU, called Jones’ statements “very disturbing.” Also, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology [at BYU] do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

See http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm to see how Jones was ripped apart by his own University.

3. No suspicious financial transactions

One of the first things the FBI did was check for profiteering from 9/11. This is easy to do because details of all financial transactions are a matter of public record.

Upon inspection, no such transactions occurred to any meaningful extent. See Point 6, at:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

Answer 4

Simply put, "no hard evidence" against a single individual in such a complex terror operation hardly means that he is innocent.
It seems almost self evident to me that after all of the terror attacks against Americans all over the globe, including the first World Trade Center bombing, an event such as that of 9/11 was almost inevitable - especially given our policies of allowing the previous attacks to continue with pretty much impunity.

Answer 5

Excellent. These guys said they did it. I follow jihad.org also. More links... In my opinion the USA was involved only that during the exchange of administrations we learned too late what was really going on. President Clinton was busy protecting his popularity and ego. Bush go information yet the CIA FBI did not join forces against terror threats ? Airport security was a joke and meanwhile Clinton also reduced military spending as extremists planned away. I firmly believe Bush inherited the disaster. And that any idea that the US reduced the WTC to rubble on purpose is just futile efforts. Given it's an election season with a Clinton did we expect less? After 10yrs watching. 1998 knowing airplanes were bombs and no one listened. Yea I am angry.I had security levels myself and friends with very high ones w/in the FBI. I was never on the wacky list. First comment from one was "oh sh*it ! And then 9-11. btw my birthdate 9-12


edit: I am still reeling over last links... if you are spelling out more conpiracies? No I don't buy it. My thoughts TY
Thumbs down don't frighten me. I think you offering of a good debate is worthy of excellent ratings today. Beats the rants ...

Answer 6

Thanks to the United States administration, we don't know who was behind 9/11. They encouraged the removal of steel and tampering of the crime scene. However, there are many people who did benefit from 9/11:

- Lease holder of building had recently negotiated a new insurance policy that would assure him billions of dollars in compensation should the buildings be destroyed through terrorist acts. The buildings were losing money because of poor occupancy rates.

- Corporate Executives for Enron and others involved in major financial frauds had critical documents destroyed in the demolition of WTC 7 (the third building in NYC).

- Contractors and munitions makers who were looking for a way to invade Iraq and earn big profits.

- George Bush who was documented as looking for justification to invade Iraq. (One of his brothers was in charge of security at the WTC complex. 9/11 was his last day!)

- Investors who anticipated a drop in American Airlines stocks and other sensitive stocks. Investors who had an interest in oil.

I suspect it would be hard to convict Osama bin Laden in a fair trial, especially when the evidence points to a planned demolition. The trial would expose a lot of other sensitive areas that the administration and other monied interests do not want to open.

Answer 7

Bin Laden almost certainly had his hand in it, his organization providing money and training. As for lack of Hard Evidence I'm not sure what you would accept. After all, every one of the conspirators who boarded an aircraft died. It is very difficult to torture ashes and bone into a confession. And since when is the Muckraker Report a definitive source?

Answer 8

And your point is?... what do you want, a signed confession? He has already verbally claimed responsibility... in any case he is involved enough to be executed on sight.
No one (other than the loony left when bringing up similar arguments) has claimed that Saddam was directly involved in 9-11. However it is widely known that he supported terrorist and terrorism. He has been an enemy of the US from the first Gulf war and his refusal to obey the conditions of his surrender.

Answer 9

Problem is he did do it. No one else. Of course if you want to believe that hundreds of American service people would knowingly obey orders that resulted in the deaths of 3000 innocent people, by all means believe that lie.

Answer 10

When I was younger I stole a candy bar because my father wouldn't give me money to buy it. When my father asked me where I got the money to buy it I made up some lie about finding it on the sidewalk.

He whipped my butt and took me back to the corner store to make me apologize.

Moral of the story, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Answer 11

My guess is someone who is fed up with the US foreign policy.