Charlie Sheen questions 9/11!!!!!

[scroll99]

Cheney Admits Osama Had Nothing To Do With 9-11

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.



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


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

 

[dreamer]

I do not see the point of your last post, the VP made a mistake in an interview and mixed up Bin Ladin for Saddam. The interviewer was responsible enought to ask for clarification when they realized the VP made a mistake.

 

[scroll99]

I do not see the point of your last post, the VP made a mistake in an interview and mixed up Bin Ladin for Saddam. The interveiwer was responsible enought to ask for clarification when they realized the VP made a mistake.

so you agree Sadaam was not involved in 9/11 ?

 

[dreamer]

so you agree Sadaam was not involved in 9/11 ?

I have no idea, and the interview you posted certainly does not say that either, is says they did not make the case

However, I think it is a fair assumption that Bin Laden did not call up Saddam and said, hey guess what we are doing tomorrow

I think it is reasonable to conclude that Saddam did not know ahead of time, however it is likely he helped and supported terrorists

 

[scroll99]

I have no idea, and the interview you posted certainly does not say that either, is says they did not make the case

However, I think it is a fair assumption that Bin Laden did not call up Saddam and said, hey guess what we are doing tomorrow

I think it is reasonable to conclude that Saddam did not know ahead of time, however it is likely he helped and supported terrorists

Do you think that US national commission is trying to cover up Saddaam and Bin Laden cooperation in this report ?

OR

Do you agree with this report ?


Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links

The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.


It says Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded.

There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm

 

[dreamer]

Do you think that US national commission is trying to cover up Saddaam and Bin Laden cooperation in this report ?

The commission found no link, but if you believe the conspiracy websites you would think the commission would make up a link between the two to help Bush justify the war

 

[scroll99]

The commission found no link, but if you believe the conspiracy websites you would think the commission would make up a link between the two to help Bush justify the war

I am asking you

Do you think that US national commission is trying to cover up Saddaam and Bin Laden cooperation in this report ?

OR

Do you agree with this report ?


Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links

The US national commission examining the 11 September 2001 attacks has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda militants carry them out.


It says Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded.

There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm

 

[dreamer]

I agree that the report states that they found no link. That does not mean a link does not exist however, as mentioned in my previous post, I do think it is reasonable that they did not communicate.

As for the question is the commission covering up, I believe the commission is reporting based on the facts given them.

And I have stated previously that I do believe it is plausible that the coverup by the sources of the information given to the commission was for the purpose of deflecting blame in not preventing the attacks.

 

[scroll99]

I agree that the report states that they found no link. That does not mean a link does not exist however, as mentioned in my previous post, I do think it is reasonable that they did not communicate.

So what I get from your point of view is that whatever commission says , it is not necessarry that it is all correct and in some cases you can also disagree with the official version of the story according to your comfort level .

 

[danmand]

The odds of a link between the secular Saddam Hussein and the wahhabi Bin Laden are extremely slim, and if the US have not found any, after occupying the country for 3 years, I am willing to believe that none existed.

 

[dreamer]

So what I get from your point of view is that whatever commission says , it is not necessarry that it is all correct and in some cases you can also disagree with the official version of the story according to your comfort level .

No, that is not what I am saying, that is what you are trying to interpret

The commission reported on the information given to them. Did they do a good job, did they ask enough questions, only time will tell.

As for my comfort level, I have alway stated that everything I have read and heard leads me to believe what the coverup is, not the conspiracy theories being published.

 

[scroll99]

No, that is not what I am saying, that is what you are trying to interpret

The commission reported on the information given to them. Did they do a good job, did they ask enough questions, only time will tell.

As for my comfort level, I have alway stated that everything I have read and heard leads me to believe what the coverup is, not the conspiracy theories being published.

I am not talking about whether commission did a good job or not .
I am talking about authencity of the commission report ? and your comments below and everywhere are making the commission report authenticy absolutely suspicious.

So again ,do you believe to the authenticy of the commission report.
YES or NO?

no dodging this time....

YES or NO ?

I agree that the report states that they found no link. That does not mean a link does not exist however, as mentioned in my previous post, I do think it is reasonable that they did not communicate.

As for the question is the commission covering up, I believe the commission is reporting based on the facts given them.

And I have stated previously that I do believe it is plausible that the coverup by the sources of the information given to the commission was for the purpose of deflecting blame in not preventing the attacks.

 

[dreamer]

I am not dodging anything, and I remind you that I did ask you your opinion on what actually happened verses your repeated posting of links and articles.

I will state it again but more detailed, the commission reported what they had found based on the evidence given to them. Could there be errors in the report, of course, could they be significant enough to make their conclusions wrong, I do not think so.

Do I believe that certain government agencies gave full truthful information to the commission, no I do not. I believe that the coverup is not by the commission, but by agencies trying to avoid blame for not stopping the attacks.

Maybe you should read the complete commission report rather than relying on others interpretations. Do you even know who participated in the commission and their political backgrounds?

And I would still like to know what you think happened, in your own words, not links.

 

[assoholic]

...I believe like the Warren commission the 9/11 comissions sole purpose was to decieve the American public, is that clear enough.

 

[scroll99]

I am not dodging anything, and I remind you that I did ask you your opinion on what actually happened verses you repeated posting of links and articles.

I will state it again but more detailed, the commission reported what they had found based on the evidence given to them. Could there be errors in the report, of course, could they be significant enough to make their conclusions wrong, I do not think so.

Do I believe that certain government agencies gave full truthful information to the commission, no I do not. I believe that the coverup is not by the commission, but by agencies trying to avoid blame for not stopping the attacks.

Maybe you should read the complete commission report rather than relying on others interpretations. Do you even know who participated in the commission and their political backgrounds?

And I would still like to know what you think happened, in your own words, not links.

So again ,do you believe to the authenticy of the commission report. ?

YES or NO?

please no dodging this time....

YES or NO ?

 

[dreamer]

...I believe like the Warren commission the 9/11 comissions sole purpose was to decieve the American public, is that clear enough.

well at least you express an opinion

 

[scroll99]

well at least you express an opinion

So again ,do you believe to the authenticy of the commission report. ?

YES or NO?

please please no dodging this time....

YES or NO ?

 

[dreamer]

So again ,do you believe to the authenticy of the commission report. ?

YES or NO?

please please no dodging this time....

YES or NO ?

scroll99, I answered your question

but in case I am misunderstanding you, what do you mean by "authenticity"

 

[scroll99]

scroll99, I answered your question

but in case I am misunderstanding you, what do you mean by "authenticity"

No , you havn't answer my question at all . My question is very simple.
just in case you dont dodge it again ...

I'll change the wording slightly so that you understand exactly what I am asking


So again ,do you believe that the commission report is authentic (conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief ) ?

YES or NO?

please please no dodging this time....

please reply only

YES or NO ?

 

[dreamer]

Now I think you are playing games here.

I answered your question by stating

I will state it again but more detailed, the commission reported what they had found based on the evidence given to them. Could there be errors in the report, of course, could they be significant enough to make their conclusions wrong, I do not think so

You somehow want me to state Yes or No to your question so that you can start posting a whole bunch of links again.

I agree with the findings of the commission report based on the evidence given to them. I have read most of it and I suggest you do the same rather than relying on other's interpretation of it.

When you do that maybe you can express your own opinion based on what you have read and heard reported.