Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: The Guardian

A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission’s leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John H Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

He was critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and vice chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and 9/11 – “the 28 pages”, as they are widely known in Washington – because they contained “raw, unvetted” material that might smear innocent people.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers?CMP=twt_gu

[Botany]

1. Tell me again why we invaded Iraq?

n/t

[mtasselin]

2. freedom

You know why it was for FREEDOM, just kidding pretty sure it was oil.

[happyslug]

11. People go to war for "Freedom" all the time.

In 1861 the South went to war to persevere the Freedom to own Slaves.

In 1939 Hitler went to war to persevere the Freedom to kill Slavs and Jews.

The US went to war with Saddam in 1990 to preserve the freedom for Kuwait to live in Feudalism.

In 1991 the US went to war with Saddam for the Free Iraqi oil from the tyranny of being sold by people not allied with the US.

In the 1990s the US went to war with Serbia to preserve the Freedom of Albanian gangs to ship drugs via Kosovo (the US and NATO did NOT attack Serbia during the conflict over Bosnia but only when Kosovo went into rebellion).

In Vietnam, the US went to war to preserve the Freedom of South Vietnamese to vote for any Anti-Communist they wanted (it was the Communists who wanted an open vote on unification of North and South Vietnam on that issue for they knew they would win such a vote).

Thus all wars are fought for "Freedom" but in many cases not the Freedom people want.

[Plucketeer]

17. Oil lubricates things

so they can move >freely<.

[underpants]

20. Operation Iraqi Liberty

OIL quickly changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Seriously, during the entire planning phase not one person appears to have pointed out the OIL acronym.

[Plucketeer]

22. Intriguing point

I love stuff like this.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

47. Yep...

... I remember that very well.

[Botany]

23. Why we did it

[onecaliberal]

55. Freedumb!

[Qutzupalotl]

69. The freedom to invade whoever we want.

Because you have to exercise your freedoms to keep them.

[yourpaljoey]

4. Iraq had cornered the market on Freedom Fries... and they were hoarding the Hunt's ketchup!

At least, this is how I recall it.
Bush and his band of Super Heroes freed
those commodities, and all was as it should
be once again!

Hillary is an expert on this, and many similar subjects.

[notadmblnd]

77. No, No. you remember- it was to free people from their mortal souls

to make them believe believe in rock and roll
And teach them how to dance real slow

so they could drive their chevys to the levees
while the good ole boys drank whiskey and rye
and sang this will be the day that you die
this'll be the day that you'll die

[yourpaljoey]

78. true... true... the American Dream

too bad the author turned to be a wife beater

[RickHworth]

13. Distraction

So that no one would notice exactly how inept the President was. Throw in a few photo ops, bumper sticker slogans, while enriching your buddies.

[farleftlib]

54. LOL. He's the poster child for ineptitude.

The front man for resource wars and nepotism. Welcome to DU.

[Raster]

19. Because they hated us for our freedoms.

[Botany]

21. Paul Krugman

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-right-and-wrong-questions-about-the-iraq-war/393497/

The war was going to happen. The WMD claims were the result of the need to find a case for the war, rather than the other way around. Paul Krugman is exactly right when he says:


The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence
that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted
a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts
at that.

[yardwork]

41. Profit, pure and simple.

[lark]

58. Profit and Power

Bush wanted to be the war president so daddy could make $$ with his war munitions company (began with a C, can't think of the name at this point. It was the one he and the bin-Ladens owned) and so Cheney could get rich through KBR. One of the first things Bush did on coming to office was to cancel the restriction that companys' that had violated Federal contracting rules were prohibited from further contracts. This was done way before 9/11, wonder why? Nah, we know why. Cheney needed the $$ and enriched himself to the tune of 400% increase in assets during the 8 years he was VP. Bush liked the $$ but think more so he wanted the power that came from running a war, the blind obedience of the American public because of "our military". He thought this was his ticket to achieving all his ends, and it did provide him with lots of assistance.

[Bohunk68]

74. Carlyle and you are correct

[lark]

96. Thank you

That's exactly the cabal I was trying to think of.

[Javaman]

36. it was there. nt

[RiverNoord]

37. The answer is more important than you may think.

When George W. Bush was 'elected' to the Presidency in 2000, a large number of people who had worked in prior Republican administrations and later developed aggressive, fringe dogmas involving U.S. warfare, came with him.

Very few voters understood what the likely consequences of foreign policy domination by 'neoconservatives' would mean. Hell, hardly anyone even had a notion of who these people were or what agendas they would push.

But the real problem with the catastrophic Bush Administration wasn't Bush himself. He was a rather stupid, easily manipulated person. It was the power structure that was ready to slip into place with him. People like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Libby, Woolsey, they basically conducted a coup against the existing civilian foreign policy infrastructure. And one of their key aims was an invasion of Iraq. But they knew they'd need to have something better then their theories to sell such a war.

Along came the attacks of 9/11. We'll never really know if any or several of these bastards let a few things slip in hopes of securing their pretense, but the crashes were exceptionally violent and destructive, and they got their war. A war which was based on academic theory developed through the Project for a New American Century. Nothing else.

And now we have one candidate for the Presidency who has an exceptionally well organized power structure, on many levels, ready to rapidly deploy throughout the entire bureaucracy of the Executive, upon the successful election of Hillary Clinton to the office of the Presidency. Many are already in place, and Goldman Sachs already has an extraordinary presence in the Government, particularly the Department of the Treasury.

Who do you want managing the revenues and expenditures of the United States Government? Anyone but 'former' employees of companies whose sole purpose is manipulation of the illusion of currency for their own benefit. You might as well assign only convicted arsonists as officers to flamethrower infantry units - the only thing you can count on is that they'll burn something for their own gratification.

Many are from 'international capital' organizations. Lots, in fact. And one of the most important skills in international finance is effective and discreet bribery. You just need to ensure you've got the proper connections to prevent potential prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. You also might need military pressure brought to bear if the revenues from a deal are threatened by pressures originating within or nearby a country where projects are underway.

Donating a few million dollars to a family 'foundation' of a former U.S. President and possible future U.S. President, then a few hundred thousand to one of their campaigns, loaning the campaign a few of their best lobbyists, and funneling money via her campaign to various other candidates of her party and the national party's leadership... That's the kind of thing that delivers those results. And gets your people into offices, where they can call the shots directly.

If we elect Hillary Clinton to the office of the Presidency, at least we should not claim ignorance of the stuff that is likely to follow. International finance companies will control, at a minimum, the Executive branch of the United States government. They will have extensive history binding Senators and Congresspersons to them.

This time we have solid forewarning.

[Octafish]

72. You should start a DU Journal.

Thank you for taking the time to put it into words.

[RiverNoord]

75. Thanks for the kind words.

But if I did something like that I'd start thinking my words have more merit than they do.

I'm just happy to participate in conversations on DU through which I am regularly educated on matters that might instead seem much simpler than they really are.

There really are remarkable ranges of people and perspectives on this site. After we blunder through the inevitable stuff that's written by people who just get off on anonymous insults, there's a lot to learn.

But thanks again - that was very thoughtful of you.

[shadowmayor]

88. PNAC

This cabal of American terrorists took control of our government, directed our military and it wasn't really even done in secret. An amazing coup d'etat that history will feast upon in the coming decades and centuries. People used to ask why Germany invaded Russia, yet much of what transpired was written about in Hitler's nasty little book. In the same vein, the Project for a New American Century explains exactly why we destroyed Iraq - er "liberated" Iraq. General Wes Clark asked Wolfowitz what the hell was going on with Iraq and the war criminal replied that Iraq was just the first of many to come including Iran, Egypt, Libya and Syria. Daddy issues, oil, and wanting to be a "war president" are certainly a part of the narrative, but the whole fiasco begins with the evil shitheads who plotted and schemed and deceived and somehow were allowed to run our country. Necessary for this operation of course, is our fawning corporate media incapable of transmitting the truth and unwilling to even try. Every asshole who signed the PNAC "pledge" should rot in jail.

[LittleGirl]

91. that's great

and your words do have impact and it's freaking scary as hell to consider the international finance companies controlling the executive branch.

[RiverNoord]

95. They control pretty big chunks of it already.

There's something to be said, in theory, for people in Treasury who can make a bit of magic with money (e.g., convincing people it'll be there when they ask to see it, so long as they agree never to ask...).

But it's gone way beyond that to the point where both the Treasury and the Fed are operated by revolving-door executives of the most prominent private 'finance' firms in the country. The revolving door culture means that there is no meaningful distinction between the Treasury of the United States, which is all about managing the revenue and expenditures of the United States of America, and private capital management companies, which are all about using other people's money to generate profits.

The two roles are largely incompatible, at least from the perspective of the citizens of the United States. On the other hand, are there any advantages for capital management firms to have ex or future (often both) executives managing the revenues and expenditures of the entity with the most concentrated amounts of money in the world, bar none?

I think I'd be perfectly happy sacrificing a bit of creativity with public finances to remove private-sector financial personnel from all such offices of the public trust...

[AgerolanAmerican]

53. Bush Jr. had daddy issues

and everyone who thought they might profit from the affair went along with it

[scscholar]

76. You're assuming this "Republican member" isn't a liar...

why do you believe his kind?

[wildbilln864]

85. Because the PNACers wanted it and after

they got their "new Pearl Harbor event" they got it!

[Justice]

3. Lehman had a greater gravitis than anyone to push for the truth to come out but he did not,

Why now?

It doesn't matter now because the damage is already done, it mattered then.

[tk2kewl]

12. it still matters

the truth always matters

[7962]

5. I must bring up the CT folks. They've been saying there WERE no hijackers

So will they think that this report is just another "CIA fake" along with all the OTHER evidence?

[Fast Walker 52]

6. they needed patsies to act as hijackers

the CT is that the hijackings didn't really happen, and that the operation was controlled by other means (there are various theories on this).

IMO, there are real questions about how the hijackers could have pulled off the operation by themselves-- for instance, taking over the cockpit without the pilots alerting ground control, navigating and flying the planes at top speed, the precise maneuvering needed is hard to believe for amateurs who had never really flown those jets before.

In any case, the Saudi connection to the hijackers is only one piece of the puzzle.

[7962]

9. but there were notifications of a hijacking

Back then, if one happened everyone just thought it was going to be a long day. Access to the cockpit was easy to get back then as well.
The remote control stuff is just silliness. If they were remotely controlled, the 4th plane wouldnt have crashed in PA after the passengers got involved. Which is also said to be "fake" by the CT whacks.
All they needed to know was how to dial in ONE location; the highest structure in the entire city, which isnt hard to find. They did have some flight training; pushing the throttle is easy. Try one of the simulators.
You can tell they werent perfect or they would have hit much lower on the towers, trapping many thousands more & making the disaster 10x worse. They hit high up, which would be the easiest spot

[Fast Walker 52]

15. not one of the four flights emitted the standard hijacking code

which is a 4 digit code dialed in on the transponder.

Flight 93 did broadcast a cockpit struggle over their radio, but it's hard to know exactly what happened there. At the same time, they were warned about the hijacking threat right before they were taken over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93.

[7962]

40. But if the hijackers werent really in control, 93 wouldve continued on.

Any "remote" operation of the plane would've finished the original objective. These guys didnt need a lot of training to pull this off.
And flight 11 FAs notified the ground of their hijacking as well. I imagine the pilots didnt have much time to send a code. Its more likely that the men entered the cockpit & immediately killed them

The problem is, there have been too many movies & TV shows over the years that make people think ANYTHING can be done surreptitiously. usually the most likely answer IS the answer, even if its not spooky & fantastic

[Fast Walker 52]

59. obviously you believe the official story, which is not supportable imo

In the conspiracy version, there are lots of potential explanations for what happened to flight 93.

Flight 11 never notified ATC of the hijacking>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

All the 9/11 pilots were big military veterans. Not so clear how they were over-taken by hijackers armed only with box cutters, or how they left their seats, or what happened.

[7962]

62. I believe the Saudi involvement shows the fallacy of the conspiracy theories

And since pilots are strapped in facing forward, its not hard to believe that you could get your throat slit before you could release yourself to fight back. Wouldnt take more than a few seconds.
One of the Flt 11 pilots did turn on the cockpit radio.

Flight 11 DID notify they'd been hijacked. The FBI has the transcript of the call from the Flt 11 FA telling them they've been hijacked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Ong

So now we're supposed to believe that both the US govt AND the Saudis all conspired together (because they're so trusting of each other) to convince a bunch of guys to TRY to hijack planes that didnt really NEED to be hijacked, and that 1 of the planes being remotely controlled still couldnt be flown to its target for some reason, and dont forget the part about the planes being emptied of people too, thats a popular one. And all the phone calls were faked by the CIA (also "in on it&quot . Oh, and the missile that hit the Pentagon, too, cant forget that one. Even though there were plenty of people who SAW the jet hit the building as well as video and damage to ground structures on the way in. But all THOSE people are also likely fakes as well. And Osama had nothing at all to do with it, since it was a setup, yet still claimed responsibility for it. Oh, yeah, and he was dead for years before they actually SAID they got him. Which would mean W and Obama are BOTH "in on it" as well...... And thats only 1/2 of it!

All of which will eventually lead to someone blaming the Jews ( dont forget none of them showed up for work that day!)

[Fast Walker 52]

67. Betty Ong was a flight attendant, and she called after the cockpit take-over apparently

The question is how they got into the cockpit so quickly. After getting in somehow, they would have one slim chance to rush in and slit the throats of both pilots, with boxcutters. And they did that 8 out of 8 times?

And even if they did that, having your throat slit would spray a lot of blood on the controls. Pretty messy and seems like it would interfere with piloting.

As far as the rest, you obviously don't understand covert operations or false flag operations.

But overall, it's clear that the US govt and Saudis benefited from 9/11 and deposing Saddam.

[7962]

83. The Saudis arch enemy is iran not Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam made Iran stronger

No, they didnt like Saddam either, but They didnt consider him the threat that Iran posed. Not that it matters, since Iraq never had anything to DO with 9/11

[Fast Walker 52]

87. Saddam was a threat to the Saudis at the time

at least they apparently felt threatened by him, back around that time.

[billhicks76]

89. Remote Controlled 737s Since 1998

For crash tests at Boeing. Also the air traffic controll tapes to the planes were destroyed by the controller so as to " not upset the families".

[yellowcanine]

51. There WERE hijackers. The planes went to Panama where the passengers have been living.

It is all about to come out in the Panama papers. The story of the faked moon landings will also be exposed at the same time. And the true story about the Grassy Knoll. It's all going down now, folks. Every conspiracy in history solved in one fell swoop! Including who REALLY shot JR!

[sulphurdunn]

7. The next question might be to ask

whether or not Osama bin Laden was maybe a patsy or just a pawn.

[Fast Walker 52]

57. probably a CIA operative

as they say, al-CA-duh

[oberliner]

8. This person is the CEO of private equity capital firm serving the US Defense industry

Perhaps that ought to be taken into consideration.

[Jesus Malverde]

65. In which way?...nt

[oberliner]

86. Ulterior motives?

Just seems like it could be relevant. Maybe not.

[Octafish]

10. BFEE owes Phil Zelikow a major.

28 Pages

By Lawrence Wright
The New Yorker, Sept. 9, 2014

EXCERPT...

Those advocating declassification present a powerful and oftentimes emotional argument, but others offer compelling reasons that the document should remain buried under the Capitol. Immediately after the Joint Congressional Inquiry finished its report, in late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—better known as the 9/11 Commission—began its work, under the leadership of Thomas Kean, the former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana. The questions raised by the twenty-eight pages were an important part of the commission’s agenda; indeed, its director, Philip Zelikow, hired staffers who had worked for the Joint Inquiry on that very section to follow up on the material. According to Zelikow, what they found does not substantiate the arguments made by the Joint Inquiry and by the 9/11 families in the lawsuit against the Saudis. He characterized the twenty-eight pages as “an agglomeration of preliminary, unvetted reports” concerning Saudi involvement. “They were wild accusations that needed to be checked out,” he said.

Zelikow and his staff were ultimately unable to prove any official Saudi complicity in the attacks. A former staff member of the 9/11 Commission who is intimately familiar with the material in the twenty-eight pages recommends against their declassification, warning that the release of inflammatory and speculative information could “ramp up passions” and damage U.S.-Saudi relations.

Stephen Lynch agrees that the twenty-eight pages were buried in order to preserve the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. “Part of the reason it was classified was the fact that it would create a visceral response,” he told me. “There would be a backlash.” But, thirteen years later, is that still a reason to keep the document a secret?

SNIP...

Thomas Kean remembers finally having the opportunity to read those twenty-eight pages after he became chairman of the 9/11 Commission—“so secret that I had to get all of my security clearances and go into the bowels of Congress with someone looking over my shoulder.” He also remembers thinking at the time that most of what he was reading should never have been kept secret. But the focus on the twenty-eight pages obscures the fact that many important documents are still classified—“a ton of stuff,” Kean told me, including, for instance, the 9/11 Commission’s interviews with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton. “I don’t know of a single thing in our report that should not be public after ten years,” Kean said.

CONTINUED...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

MIHOP.

[Enthusiast]

25. And they want to cut my Social Security!

[Octafish]

30. Like Nixon and China and Kissinger and Chile. Wage Slave Planet coming up!

The new government immediately began privatizing the businesses that Allende had seized, as well as reversing his other socialist reforms. But Pinochet did not have an economic plan of his own, and by 1975 inflation would run as high as 341 percent. Into this crisis stepped a group of economists known as "the Chicago boys."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

[Enthusiast]

31. I remember! We were fed up with the bullshit clear back then.

[Octafish]

32. The Chicago Boys created the Chilean Piratization Model

Old news to you, Enthusiast. Never mentioned on television. Ever.

The author was a Chicago Boy helping implement the privatization scam for Pinochet, ITT and the globalist crowd:

President Clinton and the Chilean Model.

By José Piñera

Midnight at the House of Good and Evil

"It is 12:30 at night, and Bill Clinton asks me and Dottie: 'What do you know about the Chilean social-security system?'” recounted Richard Lamm, the three-term former governor of Colorado. It was March 1995, and Lamm and his wife were staying that weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.

I read about this surprising midnight conversation in an article by Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, May 13, 1996), as I was waiting at Dulles International Airport for a flight to Europe. The article also said that early the next morning, before he left to go jogging, President Bill Clinton arranged for a special report about the Chilean reform produced by his staff to be slipped under Lamm's door.

That news piqued my interest, so as soon as I came back to the United States, I went to visit Richard Lamm. I wanted to know the exact circumstances in which the president of the world’s superpower engages a fellow former governor in a Saturday night exchange about the system I had implemented 15 years earlier.

Lamn and I shared a coffee on the terrace of his house in Denver. He not only was the most genial host to this curious Chilean, but he also proved to be deeply motivated by the issues surrounding aging and the future of America. So we had an engaging conversation. At the conclusion, I ventured to ask him for a copy of the report that Clinton had given him. He agreed to give it to me on the condition that I do not make it public while Clinton was president. He also gave me a copy of the handwritten note on White House stationery, dated 3-21-95, which accompanied the report slipped under his door. It read:

[font color="red"]Dick,
Sorry I missed you this morning.
It was great to have you and Dottie here.
Here's the stuff on Chile I mentioned.
Best,
Bill.[/font color]

Three months before that Clinton-Lamm conversation about the Chilean system, I had a long lunch in Santiago with journalist Joe Klein of Newsweek magazine. A few weeks afterwards, he wrote a compelling article entitled,[font color="green"] "If Chile can do it...couldn´t North America privatize its social-security system?" [/font color]He concluded by stating that "the Chilean system is perhaps the first significant social-policy idea to emanate from the Southern Hemisphere." (Newsweek, December 12, 1994).

I have reasons to think that probably this piece got Clinton’s attention and, given his passion for policy issues, he became a quasi expert on Chile’s Social Security reform. Clinton was familiar with Klein, as the journalist covered the 1992 presidential race and went on anonymously to write the bestseller Primary Colors, a thinly-veiled account of Clinton’s campaign.

“The mother of all reforms”

While studying for a Masters and a Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University, I became enamored with America’s unique experiment in liberty and limited government. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the first volume of Democracy in America hoping that many of the salutary aspects of American society might be exported to his native France. I dreamed with exporting them to my native Chile.

So, upon finishing my Ph.D. in 1974 and while fully enjoying my position as a Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and a professor at Boston University, I took on the most difficult decision in my life: to go back to help my country rebuild its destroyed economy and democracy along the lines of the principles and institutions created in America by the Founding Fathers. Soon after I became Secretary of Labor and Social Security, and in 1980 I was able to create a fully funded system of personal retirement accounts. Historian Niall Ferguson has stated that this reform was “the most profound challenge to the welfare state in a generation. Thatcher and Reagan came later. The backlash against welfare started in Chile.”

But while de Tocqueville’s 1835 treatment contained largely effusive praise of American government, the second volume of Democracy in America, published five years later, strikes a more cautionary tone. He warned that “the American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” In fact at some point during the 20th century, the culture of self reliance and individual responsibility that had made America a great and free nation was diluted by the creation of [font color="green"] “an Entitlement State,”[/font color] reminiscent of the increasingly failed European welfare state. What America needed was a return to basics, to the founding tenets of limited government and personal responsibility.

[font color="green"]In a way, the principles America helped export so successfully to Chile through a group of free market economists needed to be reaffirmed through an emblematic reform. I felt that the Chilean solution to the impending Social Security crisis could be applied in the USA.[/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.josepinera.org/articles/articles_clinton_chilean_model.htm

These guys and gals just want to ride herd on humanity. What better way than controlling the money spigot?

[Enthusiast]

39. Good thing they're on "our side".

[MariaThinks]

14. just like pakistan and iran support their terrorist groups.

[happyslug]

18. Iran?

Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas, but both groups are NOT known to do acts of terrorism like 9-11. Both groups are called terrorist groups by Israel and the USA, but mostly do to traditional guerrilla activities as opposed to actual acts like 9-11.

Israel blames Hamas for permitting mortar fire from the Gaza Strip into Israel, Hamas says it is trying to stop such attacks, but fo to that failure Hamas is called a Terrorist.

Hezbollah drove out Israel from southern Lebanon using guerilla activites in the 1990s and again called a terrorist group for that activity. Again not a 9-11 action. In my opinion neither are terrorist groups, they are resistance groups and they actions reflect resistence to Israel as opposed to acts of terror to attack civilians.

[reddread]

48. why do you suppose US officials shifted the blame for Khobar Towers to Iran?

patently ridiculous but clung to as 9-11-01 asserted itself and
they stole our freedom.

whoever they is.
that is what they did.

[FlatBaroque]

16. Of course the Saudi's were intimately involved, but someone needs to find out who did this....

[Enthusiast]

26. It was hit by a plane that burned so hot it melted the steel I beams.

Oh, wait!

[7962]

46. Steel loses more than 1/2 its strength long before "melting"

And well below the temp of burning jet fuel.

BTW, ever watched how steel is MADE?

[pangaia]

29. THAT is the one that was brought down by intentional demolition charges.

What do I know... but that certainly is how any such demolition looks, NOT like tower 1 and 2.


And the first charges that went off were in the cdenter of the bottom of the building..


Again, what do I know..

[ieoeja]

33. The New York fire department. They said it was damaged and in danger of collapse.

So they brought in people to pull the building down.

Why am I seemingly the only person in the entire world who remembers the fucking NYFD announcing they were going to do it before it even happened?

Of all the 9-11 truthiness this is the silliest. They fucking told us they pulled it down! They told us beforehand they were going to do it. How in the world does that qualify as a secret conspiracy?

[FlatBaroque]

38. LOL. This must the new "everyone knows".

Please provide a link reporting NYFD annouced they would take it down, and I will figure out the logic of wiring a building for demolition while two towers are also being taken down. LOL, you guys are becoming caricatures of yourselves.

[felix_numinous]

42. Then the news agencies should have announced it

if everyone knew building 7 was being pulled, in order to calm people down for chrissake. But they didn't, this must be a new addition to the 'official' CT that continually changes over time. Amazing.

[ieoeja]

44. They did. I remember them announcing it that day. Hence, my "why am I the only one who remembers".nt

[Jesus Malverde]

63. Because it was controversial and considered CT nonsense.

It's wasn't NYFD it was Larry "Lucky" Silverstein who ordered it. Someone who having signed a lease on July 24, 2001 was compensated $4.55 billion for the tragedy two months later.

Anyone subscribing to your theory might be considered a 911 crackpot. Consider your assertion that the building was bought down in a controlled demolition. Are you asserting that the FDNY controlled demolition team (does it even exist), rigged a partially damaged building for a controlled demolition in the hours between the planes hitting 1-2 and 7 going down....really??

Believing in the controlled demolition of WTC7 could be considered the ultimate in crackpottery. Mostly because the controlled demolition of a building 40 stories tall would take many days and likely weeks of preparation. That would obviously imply an inside job, maybe thats your point. (Bush did it CT nonsense.)

The official story, that 20 dudes living in caves in Afghanistan led by an enigmatic saudi, conspired and inflicted the greatest attack in history on the American homeland is rock solid. You should read the commissions report.

I'm actually not even sure what all this hubbub over the 28 pages is about. The 911 commissioners last week informed us these were raw unvetted reports. Clearly these reports fell apart when put to the extensive critical scrutiny of the 911 commission.

With the transparent death of mastermind Osama Bin Laden and well documented confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, there isn't much left to talk about regarding 911, at this point, what difference does it make?

[Nihil]

94. I see what you did there ...

As someone pointed out downthread, there are so many Americans being employed
by PR agencies to whitewash the reputation of the Saudi's, you can definitely understand
that being "offensive" to them (with the truth) could well "cost jobs" ... and "donations" ...

[7962]

45. Because you're the only one with any damn common sense.

[Jesus Malverde]

64. Are you saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition?..nt

[7962]

82. No And neither did the post I replied to

[7962]

43. Man, you guys just cant let facts get in the way of a good movie, can you?

Maybe you could go back and watch the fire chief telling everyone before it fell that the building was unstable & unsafe?
OR maybe you could go look at the way the building was built to see how it could happen?
NAw, more fun to make it a conspiracy!

[FlatBaroque]

50. .

[valerief]

24. And who on our side were supporting Saudi officials? nt

[turbinetree]

27. Let me ask a really stupid question---------------------

since thousands of us were directly shaped by that day, by losing loved ones, jobs, etc.

These people took a secrecy oath to not implicate a government or any officials in the acts of a terrorist act, ---------------then in my opinion they should be brought before a court and to explain why they should not be charged-------------this is just outrageous.

[KansDem]

28. "...clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network"

Whew!!! So it was "government employees" and not their bosses, the Saudi Royal Family! Good to know!!

[Octafish]

34. Heh heh heh.

Well, Bandar, money trumps peace cuz it's better'n a gun for controlling peons.

[Jesus Malverde]

68. I think Bandar will be one of histories curiosities.

From being the son of a slave, (Bandar's mother, Khiziran, was a slave from Ethiopia, and the concubine of his father, Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz) to the highest levels of government.

[Octafish]

70. Agree 100-percent. Guy can fly an F-15, too.

Last I heard, he was at the top of the Saudi intelligence -- and driver of the Safari Club car.

https://www.saudiembassy.net/about/princebandar.aspx

Thanks for the background. Going from his interviews on the tee vee, he came across as a deep intellect (no sarcasm -- I'm serious).

The political upheaval in Saudi Arabia has pitted prince against prince. How is he doing these days?

[Jesus Malverde]

71. He resigned as head in 2014 and has been largely out of sight.

The sense being Syria was his project and he messed that up badly.

He's likely jetting around the world in his airbus making mischief.

Here is a blast from the past.

[Octafish]

73. Thank you very much, Jesus Malverde. I had not seen that one

Chris dutifully missed the point. As he wondered why the terrorists would want to come over here when they could "blow up your pyramids" over there, Bandar explained that what one once called "dissidents" became terrorists after an act of violence. The five they caught from killing five U.S. soldiers "four or five years ago" were "executed." Again, Chris went on his own stream of babble to miss the point they five were killed before the FBI could have at them and learn what they could.

I especially liked where Bandar spoke up and said what Chris was doing and the western media were missing was "bullshit."

.

[zentrum]

35. Yeah, but the Saudi's

…..gave money to the Clinton Foundation and then she spearheaded an arms deal for them when she was SOS—so that makes their involvement with 9/11 okay—doesn't it?

After all, she was down there on Wall Street after the attack as a Senator, as she observed in an early debate. So, it's all good.

[reddread]

49. and they MURDERED civilians, men women children, in Yemen with them

but whats a little more blood on the hands?
they can still hold back the refugee tides of your Honduran orphans and other victims.

[zentrum]

52. There you go!

It all works.

[JudyM]

56. So... Did Hillary have an opportunity to read this report before arranging that arms deal for them?

Hmmm...

[Fast Walker 52]

60. Let us never forget that the Bush family were butt buddies with the Saudis

Anyone who thinks that Bush/Cheney had no idea bout 9/11 is incredibly naive.

[senz]

81. And the special flight of Saudis out of the country after 9/11

Saudis and members of the bin Laden family.

And then there's this ...

[billhicks76]

90. So Is Bill and Hillary

But they hardly try to hide the Bush/Clinton Alliance anymore do they.

[Fast Walker 52]

92. good point.

[Jesus Malverde]

66. One thing for certain...

There are plenty of lobbyist, politicians, media who are getting compensated very well right now by the House of Saud to help spin this.

The longer this drags out, the more money they will make. This saga could go on forever. The ultimate insider shakedown of a "friend".

[EdwardBernays]

79. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia's DC lobbying firm is owned by

Hillary's campaign chairman.

His firm also represents big pharma multinationals and Weapons manufacturers like Boeing... Who also have to be one of MSNBC's biggest advertisers... Aren't total coincidences interesting...?

[senz]

80. She keeps the most disgusting company.

[wordpix]

93. I always said she shouldn't be our nominee

But our people won't listen. What choice, Hillary v the Drumpfster

[warrprayer]

84. ...

[yurbud]

97. soon MSM will move this from the "no need to mention conspiracy theory of mental patients" column to

the "everybody already knows this so there's no need to mention" column.