US coverup of Saudi gov officials sponsoring 9/11 hijackers

[Moonlight Graham]

If true, this is insane:. From a recent article in the New York Post:

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors [except Iraq].

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals. It was kept secret and remains so today.

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers [from both parties] who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast.

The rest of the article outlines specific Saudi government officials located across the US (in LA, San Diego, Washington, Virgina, & Florida) who allegedly helped 9/11 hijackers/planners. I can understand 2 consecutive US presidential administrations wanting to hide this info, since war with the world's #1 oil producer and home to Mecca (holiest site in Islam) would have disastrous economic consequences and bring about a jihad against the West not seen since the Crusades. Makes me again question all the links the Bush family had with the Saudis as outlined in Fahrenheit 9/11 and his helping them leave the US post-9/11.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

If true, this is insane:. From a recent article in the New York Post:

The rest of the article outlines specific Saudi government officials located across the US (in LA, San Diego, Washington, Virgina, & Florida) who allegedly helped 9/11 hijackers/planners. I can understand 2 consecutive US presidential administrations wanting to hide this info, since war with the world's #1 oil producer and home to Mecca (holiest site in Islam) would have disastrous economic consequences and bring about a jihad against the West not seen since the Crusades. Makes me again question all the links the Bush family had with the Saudis as outlined in Fahrenheit 9/11 and his helping them leave the US post-9/11.

I just don't see it. It doesn't make sense. Why, by this news article, half the Saudi government was involved, which seems... unlikely in the extreme.

Even if the Saudi government officially wanted this to happen -- which, by the way, I can't imagine a motive for -- the last thing they would want is for any of their diplomats, embassies or officials to be anywhere NEAR these individuals. Now as Saudi citizens they might and probably did have lots of contacts with Saudi officials over that period of time. But that does not mean those officials had any idea what they were really doing in the US or what their plans were.

Think about it a minute. The American response to this was fairly predictable. They would draw closer to Israel and there would be a massive wave of hate and antipathy towards Arabs. How does that help the Saudis? That's aside from the fact that if the US actually identified Saudi Arabia as a culprit it would have cost the king his crown if not his country. Why take that massive risk for... for what gain exactly?

[Shady]

The problem is that the Saudi family is huge. So you can theoretically have one prince somewhere that might help fund some type of terrorism, but have the majority of the rest not know about it, or not agree with it.

[Moonlight Graham]

I just don't see it. It doesn't make sense. Why, by this news article, half the Saudi government was involved, which seems... unlikely in the extreme.

Even if the Saudi government officially wanted this to happen -- which, by the way, I can't imagine a motive for -- the last thing they would want is for any of their diplomats, embassies or officials to be anywhere NEAR these individuals. Now as Saudi citizens they might and probably did have lots of contacts with Saudi officials over that period of time. But that does not mean those officials had any idea what they were really doing in the US or what their plans were.

Fair enough, I changed the title of this thread from "US coverup of Saudi government sponsoring 9/11 hijackers" to "US coverup of Saudi gov officials sponsoring 9/11 hijackers. Probably more accurate at this point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yawn...more warmed over Truther nonsense. What did you expect....the U.S. to declare war on Saudi Arabia ?

[Argus]

Yawn...more warmed over Truther nonsense. What did you expect....the U.S. to declare war on Saudi Arabia ?

If they had evidence the Saudi government was behind it? Yes.

If they knew for a fact certain individuals in the Saudi government had been involved, I would have expected a demand those officials be handed over or killed. And if the Saudis weren't willing to do either I'd expect the US to see to their deaths themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

If they had evidence the Saudi government was behind it? Yes.

If they knew for a fact certain individuals in the Saudi government had been involved, I would have expected a demand those officials be handed over or killed. And if the Saudis weren't willing to do either I'd expect the US to see to their deaths themselves.

Big, unproven "ifs"...and besides, the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since 1942 (Romania).

[dre]

Hardly "truther nonsense". The government completely redacted the part of the report that talks about who might have actually been behind this attack.

A reasonable person would ask what they might be trying to hide.

[bush_cheney2004]

A reasonable person would ask what they might be trying to hide.

"If"..."might be"..."trying"....these are the words of the Truther faithful. In God We Trust, all others bring data.

[dre]

"If"..."might be"..."trying"....these are the words of the Truther faithful. In God We Trust, all others bring data.

Well its not a case of "might be". You dont redact data unless you want to hide it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well its not a case of "might be". You dont redact data unless you want to hide it.

All OTHERS (i.e. Truthers) bring data...the government redacts data for many legitimate reasons.

As for "sponsoring", Canada technically "sponsored" Ahmed Ressam (Millennium Bomber) with false refugee status and welfare payments. Ergo, the U.S. should declare war on Canada ?

Edited December 21, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

I can understand why the US would not want to engender hostility towards Saudi Arabia, and would thus keep such details secret.

Let's be clear, though, the Truthers have consistently pointed the finger at far more outrageous "culprits" including the US government themselves, the US military and so on. I don't recall them ever putting Saudi Arabia squarely behind the attacks. But then again, they've always been good at grasping whatever pops up and making that the focus of the theory of the day.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can understand why the US would not want to engender hostility towards Saudi Arabia, and would thus keep such details secret.

The Truthers have never met the obligation to provide verifiable supporting data for their wild ass claims, and pointing to "redacted" government documents does not constitute such evidence.

[BC_chick]

Even if the Saudi government officially wanted this to happen -- which, by the way, I can't imagine a motive

[...]

Why take that massive risk for... for what gain exactly?

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but gas prices have consistently remained at around three times what they were pre 911. Edited December 21, 2013 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but gas prices have consistently remained at around three times what they were pre 911.

Not in U.S. markets. Crazy high gas taxes in Canada is another story. Unleaded gasoline (87 octane) presently sells well below $3.00 per U.S. gallon in many markets.

Edited December 21, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

Not in U.S. markets. Crazy high gas taxes in Canada is another story. Unleaded gasoline (87 octane) presently sells well below $3.00 per U.S. gallon in many markets.

Oh my bad there was a dip! Other than that thank you for the chart BC2004.... as I said gas gas tripled in price.

If you need help with the part about $1 now being $3, please let me know.

Edited December 21, 2013 by BC_chick

[dre]

I can understand why the US would not want to engender hostility towards Saudi Arabia, and would thus keep such details secret.

Let's be clear, though, the Truthers have consistently pointed the finger at far more outrageous "culprits" including the US government themselves, the US military and so on. I don't recall them ever putting Saudi Arabia squarely behind the attacks. But then again, they've always been good at grasping whatever pops up and making that the focus of the theory of the day.

Theres some wild theories out there, most of which I dont believe. But it seems pretty clear to me that people dont know anything that even approaches the whole truth. And it will probably be 40 or 50 years before it comes out. All players will be long gone at that point and there will be less reason to keep hiding stuff. For example it took 40 years for Americans to learn the truth about Vietnaam and the fake reasons staged to manufacture that conflict.

When you know full well that the only people that have all the real information are habitual and compulsive liars, then at the end of the day you just have to realize you know nothing at all.

But then again, they've always been good at grasping whatever pops up and making that the focus of the theory of the day.

Yeah in the absence of any source of credible information thats really all you can do. People that believe the "official account" given to them by the same people that are clearly hiding a whole lot of information, are "truthers" too.

Edited December 21, 2013 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

Noam Chomsky (beloved hero to many members here) addresses the Truther issue in general and the Saudi issue specifically at about minute 6:00 in this video from the University of Florida. Even Chomsky doesn't buy into such nonsense.

[dre]

Noam Chomsky (beloved hero to many members here) addresses the Truther issue in general and the Saudi issue specifically at about minute 6:00 in this video from the University of Florida. Even Chomsky doesn't buy into such nonsense.

Like I said, hes in the same boat as you and I are. Theres no credible source of information for us make any firm opinions from.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh my bad there was a dip! Other than that thank you for the chart BC2004.... as I said gas gas tripled in price.

But they could not have possibly predicted a US invasion as a response - the risk/reward chart would not make sense to anybody who had the power to make such a decision.

[Michael Hardner]

Theres some wild theories out there, most of which I dont believe. But it seems pretty clear to me that people dont know anything that even approaches the whole truth.

Like any story, you will never know the "whole truth". And like any story, you can focus on one part of it and imagine all kinds of ancillary threads as to why/how something happened. But also, like any story, there's a central chain of events that drive the events - that have a clear motive, beginning, middle, and conclusion.

There really is only the one central chain of events that drives the planning, execution, and conclusion of this event.

And it will probably be 40 or 50 years before it comes out.

They used to say that about the JFK assassination. Files are continuously being released, and there is nothing. The suspicions that are speculated upon are basically a self-sustaining media sideshow and cottage industry.

[GostHacked]

Project for a New American Century. Those PNAC guys quickly packed it all in once Bush left office.

Remember their tagline when they were essentially calling for American imperialism.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Building 7 came down like it was demolished. A total of 3 buildings came down on their own footprint, defying many laws of physics

Pinning it on the Saudi's is getting closer to the source, but the source is not the Saudis. The real threat was much closer to home. BAM PATRIOT Act.

[Argus]

"If"..."might be"..."trying"....these are the words of the Truther faithful. In God We Trust, all others bring data.

Actually, the truthers believe the buildings were brought down with explosives, that it was a CIA plot, and that there were no terrorists.

[Michael Hardner]

And... that there was no plane at the Pentagon, or that crashed in Pennsylvania, that the BBC accidentally broadcast the collapse of WTC 7 ahead of schedule, that there was a stand-down order from NATO, and that the WTC landlord orchestrated all of this as an insurance fraud scheme.

There you have it.

[GostHacked]

And... that there was no plane at the Pentagon, or that crashed in Pennsylvania, that the BBC accidentally broadcast the collapse of WTC 7 ahead of schedule, that there was a stand-down order from NATO, and that the WTC landlord orchestrated all of this as an insurance fraud scheme.

There you have it.

That plane defied physics as well. The wings folded in on the plane and went through the walls with the planes? The WTC was not as solid as the recently reinforced part of the Pentagon where this thing went through 3 rings. Kind of tells me the wings would break off and be sitting outside the building with the engines, part of one made it through all 3 rings. If you can believe that...... It may have been a plane, but not a 737.

BBC did report it before it fell. You can see the building in the background as she is reporting it already being down. OOPS.

The stand down order came from Cheney.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=595_1373664285 This was from the 9/11 commission.

But if Saudi Arabia was really behind it (again closer to the truth), then you have to wonder why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded under the pretext of terrorism (knowing that Iraq regime change was a national policy of the US at the time). 9/11 sure provided that 'new pearl harbour' in order to bring about rapid change abroad and at home.

And look at what happened, PATRIOT ACT, creation of DHS and the TSA. And now the TSA is in the airports, at the football stadium, on trains, bus terminals, then the NDAA. Just look at all that freedom.