9/11 evidence still to come out?...

[preacherman76]

Aren't you interested in backing it up?

I don't understand how I could be any more clear the Ive been. No I have no interest in backing it up. I don't even have a interest in talking about it any more.

Well if you don't have anything to back up a statement, don't make it.

Is that some friendly advice, or is it an order?

[Baz Dane]

But, your sources are questonable at best. The New York Post?

I guess you missed the links to the NY Times I've posted? And many others.

Just becasue some news organizations have or still do release "questionable" articles(and of course I agree that some, including the NY Post, do) that does not mean that every single thing they release is a lie. I'm pretty sure you would agree. That, plus the fact that a quick search through other news sources, both mainstream and others can verify items in which a "questionable" news source releases as information.

Like take Fox News. Some would say they also are a "questionable" source. So does that mean everything they have in print is a lie and can be dismissed as an outright lie, without even bothering to follow anything up? I don't think that way.

But I also don't think I(or anyone) should believe Fox News blindly without following up on the content in question in more depth elsewhere as well.

So with that in mind, lets follow up some of the meat and potatos that I had linked from the NY Post, that you find "questionable" shall we:

NY Post 1 - "- LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000."

The "team" the Post is talking about is Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan.

There is plenty of "legit" srources you can search to confirm this.

As for the statement quoted above from the Post though, we can look here:

- From Forbes: - "Investigators later concluded that Bayoumi traveled to Los Angeles to meet with Fahad al Thumairy, a Saudi official in the Islamic Affairs office there, where they “discussed the recent arrival of future 9/11 hijackers.” Bayoumi found the men an apartment and opened a bank account for them using his own money, the complaint says. He and Thumairy exchanged a number of phone calls before the attacks, and Thumairy was expelled for alleged terroist links in 2003."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cRCyUwKSpvwJ:www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/09/23/if-a-bank-can-be-liable-for-terrorism-are-the-saudis-next/+&cd=26&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

- From PDF from govinfo.library: - "Some have speculated that Fahad al Thumairy—an imam at the mosque and an accredited diplomat at the Saudi Arabian consulate from 1996 until 2003—may have played a role in helping the hijackers establish themselves on their arrival in Los Angeles."

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.pdf

So the NY Post source that I quoted, "Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers", is corroborated by others, which in turn shows the Post isn't lying in that part of the article.

NY Post 2 - "- SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki"

- From Newsweek: - "...couple of young Saudi men who barely spoke English and needed a place to stay. At the airport, they were swept up by a gregarious fellow Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had been living in the United States for several years. Al-Bayoumi drove the two men to San Diego, threw a welcoming party and arranged for the visitors to get an apartment next to his. He guaranteed the lease, and plunked down $1,550 in cash to cover the first two months' rent. His hospitality did not end there. Al-Bayoumi also aided al Hazmi and al Mihdhar as they opened a bank account, and recruited a friend to help them obtain Social Security cards and call flight schools in Florida to arrange flying lessons, according to law-enforcement officials."

http://www.newsweek.com/saudi-money-trail-140813

- From SanDiegoMagazine: - "Most San Diegans know about Alhazmi, Al­mihdhar and Hani Hanjoor, the three terrorists who lived here, and we are finally learning more about Awlaki. But much less is known about Saad Al-Habeeb, Omar Al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, three recondite Saudi nationals who lived in or visited San Diego and had links both to the terrorists and to the Saudi government. Al-Bayoumi also had links to Awlaki, federal officials later admitted...."

"... Osama Basnan, another San Diego Saudi who was a close friend of the hijackers as well as Al-Bayoumi, claims to have received monthly checks for several years totaling as much as $73,000 from the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, and his wife, Princess Haifa Faisal. Basnan’s wife, Majeda Dweikat, apparently needed thyroid surgery. She then signed many of the checks over to Basnan’s friend, Manal Bajadr, who is Al-Bayoumi’s wife."

http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/San-Diego-Magazine/September-2010/Public-Enemy-Number-1/?cparticle=2&siarticle=1

Again, other sources are saying the same thing... in more detail though. So again, the piece I quoted from the Post is shown as accurate.

- NY Post 3: " - WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar..." etc etc... I'm pretty sure I need not list yet more sources for this point as there has been plenty of sources in this thread that will show that the Post is correct again on the information they have presented as being claimed.

- Ny Post 4: " - FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy.

- From(everyones favorite) Fox News: - "Hill added that there is little doubt al-Awlaki, using his mosque as a base, along with his associates, facilitated the hijackers in San Diego in 2000. A year later, the same pattern was repeated in Fall Church at al-Awlaki's new mosque..."

"There was a lot of smoke. ... There was a lot of connection between al-Awlaki and the two hijackers in California. And then al-Awlaki moved to a different mosque, and lo and behold, shortly after that the hijackers go to Fall Church and go to Virginia," Hill explained. "They go to the mosque that al-Awlaki is at, just as in California, you have an associate of al-Awlaki ... taking them around and helping them get settled."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/02/11-hijackers-relied-on-domestic-support-network-records-show/

- From CNN: - "The 9/11 Commission report said al-Awlaki had contact with two of the hijackers -- Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar -- the year before the attacks when he served as an imam at a San Diego mosque. He also may have had contact with one of those men and a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour, when he served at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/us/fbi-al-awlaki-prostitution/

So yet again, the Post was correct. I see nothing "questionable" in that part of the report.

- NY Post 5: "-HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel."

- From The Telegraph UK: - "A senior Saudi Arabian official, now minister for the holy places, stayed at the same hotel as three September 11 hijackers the night before the suicide attacks.

American investigators are trying to make sense of the disclosure that Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman al-Hussayen, who returned to Saudi Arabia shortly after the attacks, stayed at the Marriott Residence Inn in Herndon, Virginia.

Three of the attackers stayed at the hotel that night and crashed a plane into the Pentagon the following day."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1443191/Hijackers-in-same-hotel-as-Saudi-minister.html

- From gpo.gov: - "In addition to his involvement at Al Rajhi Bank, plaintiffs allege that Saleh Al-Hussayen traveled to the United States shortly before the September 11, 2001 attacks and stayed in the same hotel as “at least three of the American Airlines Flight 77 hijacker."

"In particular, plaintiffs allege that Al-Hussayen “switched from his original hotel to the Marriott Residence Inn” the same hotel, in which the hijackers stayed."

And yet again, what the Post reported, that I quoted from, is correct and inline with what other sources are saying.

- NY Post 6: - "- SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched."

- From The Miami Herald: - "The main figures in the family were Abdulaziz al-Hijji, his wife, Anoud, and her father, Esam Ghazzawi, an advisor to a Saudi prince."

"In all, the FBI released 11 pages. They contain statements reiterating that the al-Hijjis had departed the United States in haste shortly before 9/11 and that “further investigation” had “revealed many connections” between them and persons associated with “attacks on 9/11/2001.”

Those statements flatly contradict the FBI’s public statements that agents found no connection between the al-Hijjis and the 9/11 plot.

Yet they dovetail with the account of a counterintelligence source who has said investigators in 2001 found evidence — phone records and photographs of license plates snapped at the entrance to the al-Hijjis’ Sarasota-area neighborhood — that showed Mohamed Atta, other hijackers and former Broward resident and current al-Qaeda fugitive Adnan Shukrijumah had visited the al-Hijji home."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article1973642.html

- From The Herald Tribune: - "The family, Anoud and Abdulazziz al-Hijji, had links to 9/11 hijackers — including Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, who trained at a Venice flight school in preparation for the assault on New York and Washington, D.C., that killed 2,996."

"But the family abruptly left the Prestancia home that they had lived in for six years roughly a week before the 9/11 attacks, leaving behind clothes, food, children's toys and other living essentials."

And yet again, one more time, the part of the Post article I have quoted is yet again proven accurate.

Before the Post made these statements, in case you didn't bother to read the article in it's entirety, they also stated:

"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 findings, if confirmed..." is what they said.

So they are not saying everything is proven. They are reporting on the accusations going around... Quite accurately too I might add.

Based on everything I have read from numerous other sources, I have no problem with the particular points I quoted out of the NY Post article.

I do indeed look at many different sources to try and figure out some truth in things. I also know it's important to understand which entities own which news outlets, and may possibly have higher priorities on thier agenda other than truth.

So all in all, I am quite comfortable with my "questionable" sources and the information they contain.

Even if you are not. And I'm not saying you have to be. You can believe what and who you want. That's the beauty of freedom and truth.

Cheers.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article1973642.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/article1973642.html#storylink=cpy

[frenat]

Yet here we are STILL talking about it. Have a good laugh, do whatever you have to. I have already admitted as much several times now. Neither of us is going to be impressed with the others thoughts on this, and I thinks its best we move on.

How do you KNOW I wouldn't be "impressed"? I asked. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know. All we've seen since is YOU claiming something exists but refusing to back that up. I would be impressed if you actually stood by your statement.

Edited December 12, 2014 by frenat

[preacherman76]

How sad that you can't tell the difference between "doesn't affect me" and "don't find it interesting".

Could you elaborate on that? Cause from what I can tell, if you ask someone about something an they respond with "it doesn't affect me" I would (obviously) take it to mean they didn't want to talk about it. Which if I pondered on it at all from there, would leave me believing they weren't interested in talking about it. At least with me.

[preacherman76]

How do you KNOW I wouldn't be "impressed"? I asked. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know. All we've seen since is YOU claiming something exists but refusing to back that up. I would be impressed if you actually stood by your statement.

Seriously? We are STILL here.

[frenat]

Could you elaborate on that? Cause from what I can tell, if you ask someone about something an they respond with "it doesn't affect me" I would (obviously) take it to mean they didn't want to talk about it. Which if I pondered on it at all from there, would leave me believing they weren't interested in talking about it. At least with me.

You really can't tell the difference? the existence of a massive black hole at the center of the galaxy doesn't affect me but I find it interesting. I could say the same about MANY other topics. Again, sad that you can't tell the difference between two very different phrases.

[frenat]

Seriously? We are STILL here.

What? I'm not supposed to respond to a statement directed at me? Do you know how discussion forums work?

[Likely Guy]

I guess you missed the links to the NY Times I've posted? And many others.

Just becasue some news organizations have or still do release "questionable" articles(and of course I agree that some, including the NY Post, do) that does not mean that every single thing they release is a lie. I'm pretty sure you would agree...

*snipped for brevity*

On that I do. Perhaps I'm a little hard on the NY Post and perhaps they still do employ a few serious journalists. As for the rest I scanned through it but I'll have to give it a more serious read tomorrow (I've been in front of the monitor far too long today and my eyes are burning).

I'll get back to you later after this squabble dies down.

[Baz Dane]

Hi Lemieux,

Hi Q24. Thanks for the post. I'm learning a lot more than I thought I would about these 28 pages as we go along here.

The question I posed about Bush is not so much that I think there's something in the 28 pages pertaining to him directly. Even though Republican Walter Jones, after reading the 28 pages, stated "There’s nothing in it about national security... It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.”

But he may be implicating Bush of his own accord, and reading too much into that connection based on reading a bunch of stuff about the Saudi connection that has been said to dominate through the 28 redacted pages.

But if Prince Bandar's wife was indeed found guilty of knowingly financing the terrorists, one would have to believe that Prince Bandar himself would be the real string puller on that deal, as it would be very hard to imagine his wife sneaking around behind his back to finance terrorists, while he wouldn't know a thing about it and is all innocent.

So IF his wife is actually guilty... and of course this is wild speculation for now(and maybe forever)... that would mean that we could consider Badar himself guilty, and then what would we make of George Bush's relationship with Bandar? Was Bander sneaking around Bush's back to finance the terroists?

I personally do not think there if any proof of "insider job" relating to the Bush administration in these 28 pages, but I do believe that they more than likely contain the beginings of what should have been a gigantic investigation into the financial trail of the hijackers, as well as numerous Intelligence Services flaws and blunders and perhaps illegal practices. The problem for Bush in this scenario is to me would be at least 2 questions immediately off the top of my head. 1. Why did the administration redact these 28 pages to begin with? and 2. Why were the investigations by the FBI, CIA etc, into the funding of the hijackers stopped?

But then, some of those answers may lead to even more disturbing questions about the wars etc.

This is why I'm not too big on speculation.

Nice chattin with ya Q

Cheers.

[Baz Dane]

On that I do. Perhaps I'm a little hard on the NY Post and perhaps they still do employ a few serious journalists. As for the rest I scanned through it but I'll have to give it a more serious read tomorrow (I've been in front of the monitor far too long today and my eyes are burning).

Ya! that damned monitor is playing tricks on my eyes too! lol ... You know you've been at it too long when you walk down the hallway and you see letters flashing in front of your eyes! lol

I'll get back to you later after this squabble dies down.

I'm not even bothering with the "squabble" lol... I have way to much stuff to read up on as it is!

Cheers.

[Baz Dane]

UNLESS...the day ever comes when America feels the need to 'sort' Saudi Arabia out...militarily...

and then it could all be dragged up and the 28 pages made public as a PR lead up to action..?

Here's an article that espouses that very thought.

I don't suscribe to this theory btw.

Just thought I would point it out, as I came across it the other day, and then I see your post here about the same idea.

"Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of “Get into Saudi Arabia free” card for the powers that be."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/08/playing-the-%E2%80%9Cget-into-saudi-arabia-free-card%E2%80%9D.html

And please note my words above that I do not suscribe to that particular idea... and that in itself has nothing to do with the fact that it's posted here in the washingtonsblog.com site.

I just don't particularly think that this is the reason for the pages being redacted. At this time anyways.

Cheers.

[DecoNoir]

I don't understand how I could be any more clear the Ive been. No I have no interest in backing it up. I don't even have a interest in talking about it any more.

It's funny, you always say something along these lines whenever you poke your nose into the conspiracy section, yet you never seem to actually follow up and bow out.

Is that some friendly advice, or is it an order?

I'd love for that to be an order, but then you'd just start another thread about conspiracy wackjobs with their Illuminati mini nukes being oppressed, and huff and puff about how you're leaving before disappearing for a few weeks.

[The Silver Thong]

We all know that a small lie snowballs when cought with the hand in the cookie jar. This is exactly whats happening 13 yrs later. I don`t know what the standards are in the US as far as the media is concerned but here in Canada if media lies they get banned or fined. Thats why fox news is illigal to air here on non cable stations. Now after reading Freds posts and him useing the New York times I have to say who ever wrote them had some knowledge as to what they were writing.

To me follow the money and who had the most to gain. 9-11 was not some pizzed off muslims because they didn`t like the US buying there oil. It happened because greedy people never have enough. Its like someone at a brick factory dropping a skid of bricks on there feet so they can claim workers comp. Easy money no labour required. Well unless you have a bunch of idiot tax payers that buy into the story.

[RaptorBites]

9-11 was not some pizzed off muslims because they didn`t like the US buying there oil.

Who said that?

[Likely Guy]

Who said that?

Actually, he missed me with the entire post. A skid of bricks on your feet, somethin, somethin'...?

[The Silver Thong]

Who said that?

Was not the attack on 9-11 due to the US being in certin nations uninvited or manipulating ME nations with oil and regime change. Afgan having really nothing and now we know it was the Saudis that did 9-11 and yet got a kiss on the lips for funding 9-11 aka the taliban or alquaida or Osama. Hence the bricks on the foot ref. The US did it to themselves and blaimed others for gain so a very few that could would become not rich but super rich. The money flows and we damn well know the US sleeps in the same damn bed as the enemy.

Actually, he missed me with the entire post. A skid of bricks on your feet, somethin, somethin'...?

Look up false flag

[Likely Guy]

Look up false flag

Did that, still makes no sense. Perhaps you're referring to a colloquialism?

From what I gather, what you're saying is, self inflict an injury and blame someone else.

Proofs of your assertion?

Edit: My bad. I should know better than to ask that last question.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Baz Dane]

We all know that a small lie snowballs when cought with the hand in the cookie jar. This is exactly whats happening 13 yrs later. I don`t know what the standards are in the US as far as the media is concerned but here in Canada if media lies they get banned or fined. Thats why fox news is illigal to air here on non cable stations. Now after reading Freds posts and him useing the New York times I have to say who ever wrote them had some knowledge as to what they were writing.

To me follow the money and who had the most to gain. 9-11 was not some pizzed off muslims because they didn`t like the US buying there oil. It happened because greedy people never have enough. Its like someone at a brick factory dropping a skid of bricks on there feet so they can claim workers comp. Easy money no labour required. Well unless you have a bunch of idiot tax payers that buy into the story.

Totally agreed on the Times' reports as well as a whole bunch of others's outlets.

I am noticing though that by going through older articles around 2002, from various outlets, and with the idea of tracing FBI, etc, statements on the matters of following the financing, which most sources say appear to be coming from Saudi Arabia royalty, government, and the Ulema(using charities), I am getting the impression that a lot of these news articles with the various Intelligence reports around 2002, are a sizeable source of a lot of information of the redacted 28pages. Not to say that this is fact of course, but that's the impression I'm garnering as I read all these older news reports.

"9-11 was not some pizzed off muslims because they didn`t like the US buying there oil."

About the "pizzed" off muslims that don't like the U.S. buying their oil. Those same angry muslims were perhaps fully involved/engaged/plotted etc in 9-11 indeed. And not because of oil, but because they do not like the United States any more then they liked the USSR.

1990 and on may have been the tipping point in that anger towards the U.S..

They were not very happy about the U.S. military presence in the Kingdom after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. And in fact became extremely vocal about it towards the Royal family which eventually allowed greater control for the religious Wahhabists to preside over governing.

I'll try to explain as best I can about this history and why you may want to consider that some "pizzed" off muslims did in fact pull off 911.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it raised the threat level in Saudi Arabia as the Kingdom and Iraq didn't exactly get along to begin with you might say.

Osama Bin Laden met with Prince Sultan who was the Saudi Minister of Defence at the time. Bin Laden, who already was in command of a sizeable force of fighters loyal to him(in the thousands) says he could raise a huge army very quickly to defend the Kingdom should Iraq have ambitions after being done with Kuwait.

Prince Sultan politely declined and instead invited the U.S. army into the Kingdom to protect it from any possible Iraqi attack.

Many of the Ulema did not like that arrangement and protested, but the Royal family cut a deal with the Ulema leaders and they declared a fatwa authorizing the presence of U.S. troops.

This fatwa didn't sit well with the majority of the Ulema and their followers and a movement started growing.

After the U.S. defeated the Iraqi army, the Ulema demanded the U.S. army leave Saudi soil, but the House of Saud declined.

The Ulema viewed this as an admission that the House Of Saud can not protect the kingdom on it's own accord.

This in turn led to a "Letters Of Demand" and a follow up "Memorandum Of Advice" and in which the Ulema demanded, and recieved, more authority in the governing of the Kingdom. Which also led to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which would have an office in every embassy as well.

The Kingdom leaders(Royal family) thought they would be controlling the flow of authority through the embassies etc, but the Ulema quickly took control with Wahhabism being the order of things. A devout Saudi Wahhabist views the Soviet Union and the United States, both, as evil empires and must be opposed, attacked and/or killed. And not exactly in that order depending on which cleric you happen to be listening to.

It's this ideology that has permeated, not through any embassies officially, but through the desks of their office for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

It's through this agency and host of "charities" that a lot of funding for world wide terrorism is derived.

It's through these "charities" and embassies that the 911 hijackers gained at least some of their financing, as stated by numerous officials and news agencies that you can read about in this thread.

Without financing and other help, the hijackers could not have pulled off 911, and slowly after 13 years, we are starting to re-examine the Saudi connection to the money trail of the hijackers again.

With this monetary connection to Saudi Arabia all but proven... see the rdacted pages and the comments of U.S. officials on the matter, as well as all the various news reports... One could easily surmise that "pizzed" off muslims did indeed pull off 911.

The real question I think is why was this financial connection to Saudi Arabia not further investigated to their full conclusions, and in some cases, such as the redacted pages, hidden? We must first be able to read these 28 pages before we can answer those questions.

The history of the governing of Saudi Arabia is very interesting to say the least. The Royal family and the religious leaders have formed a sort of bond to allow the Royal family to govern for all these years. But the family has faced many a crisis and threat from the religious side over the decades, but they have manged hold the bond together. And that is not because of greed on the part of the Ulema. But one may consider greed on the part of the House of Saud end of things.

Of course I'm not an expert on all of this, but the more I read and learn about this aspect of 911, the more convinced I am that it was not an "inside job" as some people think and claim(without definitive proof).

The money trail leads from "pizzed" off muslim Islamist to "pizzed" off muslim Islamist.

I do think the Bush administration is covering up something though. Technically they are, as in the 28 pages. They/He seem to be the only side in this that do not want the report released... And Obama now as well... I will add another post about that in a minute.

U.S, politicians from boths parties want it released, The Saudis are on record as want it being released. The families of the victims of 911 have been fighting for years on court to get them released. The public wants them released. Everyone except the Bush administration(now Obama too) want them released. That in itself is very strange and perhaps cause for concern.

None of this may convince you, and I'm not trying to actually. You are free to believe what you like of course, but I would suggest looking at all angles in forming your overall opinion. Maybe you have and that's that, and if so, then so be it.

I can see how some people might believe the "inside job" claims if they haven't fully explored around and taken a serious amount of time to read all aspects they can.

If a person doesn't seek out answers fully, they will tend to only hear the loudest voices. And if they form an opinion based on those loudest voices, they may be ill informed of the real truth behind the issue as sometimes the loudest voices are the ones in the wrong.

I'm sure we will learn some more as we go

[skyeagle409]

The money flows and we damn well know the US sleeps in the same damn bed as the enemy.

How many warnings did President Bush issue to Saddam to remove his troops from Kuwait? Did Saddam comply with his warnings? No! How many nations were involved in removing Iraqi troops from Kuwait? Remember, the United States did not act alone.

Did Iraq invade Saudi Arabia before they were driven out? Did the United States conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Saddam not to invade Kuwait?

Kuwait was the first step toward his invasion of other Gulf States. I still remember Saddam's warning toward his neighbors for them to forgive his war debts he incurred during his war with Iran, or else. Had the United States and other nations not become involved, Saddam would have ran through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

Look up false flag

If you are implying that 9/11 was a U.S. government false flag operation, it is a myth.

How many countries around the world had warned the United States that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would use aircraft to attack America? Did the Taliban issue a warning to the United States that Osama bin Laden would attack America? Yes it did. Did Osama bin Laden admit that he was responsible for the 911 attacks and warned the United States it could receive more attacks? Yes he did. Did al-Qaeda release martyr videos of the 911 hijackers? Yes it did. Seems that you are unaware of those chilling al-Qaeda martyr videos of the 911 hijackers, so let's take a look.

Al-Qaeda video of the 911 Hijackers

Ahmad al-Haznawi video will

Ahmed al-Ghamdi Video Will

Hamza-al Ghamdi video will

Abdulaziz al-Omari video will

https://www.youtube....h?v=7T65faJSt8c

Now, what was that you are saying about a false flag operation? On another noted, where would the United States acquire B-767s and B-757s that cannot be traced? Even their engines, APU's, and their time-sensitive replacement equipment can be traced. How would you have accounted for the original airframes, passengers and crew of American 11, American 77, United 93 and United 175?

Did American Airlines and United Airlines confirm the loss of their aircraft? Yes they did. The flight path and altitude data for each aircraft was a clue that at no time were the 9/11 aircraft flown under remote control.

Edited December 12, 2014 by skyeagle409

[Baz Dane]

A more recent update on the possible release of the 28 pages

Is Obama seriously lying to the victims' of 911 families? If so, for shame!

Obama to Bill Doyle, father of Joey Doyle(911 victim) - "Bill, I promise you I'm gonna release those 28 pages"

Bill Doyle to CNN - "He broke his promise."

You will have to watch the roughly 4-minute video segment in this link to watch/hear this and much more.

Below is a couple comments from the printed source of the link.

September 08 2014

From CNN

- Some of those still grieving the losses of family members from that horrific day are also on a mission to declassify 28 pages from the congressional investigation into the attacks, pages specifically focused on the role of foreign governments in the al Qaeda plot.

- "Editors note: After the airing of our report, National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden issued this response:

"Earlier this summer the White House requested that ODNI review the 28 pages from the joint inquiry for declassification. ODNI is currently coordinating the required interagency review and it is ongoing."

Source: http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/08/why-hasnt-obama-kept-promise-to-declassify-28-pages-about-911/

So as of September 8, and as a result of this news investigation, the ODNI is reviewing the 28 pages for it's possibility for release.

That's encouraging, and keep in mind the suit against Saudi Arabia by the families of the victims of 911, whereas the court may order the release of those pages, and the fact that the Obama administration has slightly eased up(coaxed by exposure perhaps?) may induce the court to think if the administration is possibly open to the idea of releasing the pages, a court order may not be too unrealistic. This is a possiblilty?

But something to keep in mind through all of this is that even if they do release the 28 pages... Will they act on whatever that information says? Or is it a case of "oh well, that was a long time ago" attitude?

Anyways, that's for speculation.

[Q24]

Q, how have you been bro??? Long time no see.

Hi preacherman, good to see you still here. I’ve been far too busy but hope to be back more often in 2015.

Of course I'm not an expert on all of this, but the more I read and learn about this aspect of 911, the more convinced I am that it was not an "inside job" as some people think and claim(without definitive proof).

The money trail leads from "pizzed" off muslim Islamist to "pizzed" off muslim Islamist.

I do think the Bush administration is covering up something though. Technically they are, as in the 28 pages. They/He seem to be the only side in this that do not want the report released... And Obama now as well... I will add another post about that in a minute.

U.S, politicians from boths parties want it released, The Saudis are on record as want it being released. The families of the victims of 911 have been fighting for years on court to get them released. The public wants them released. Everyone except the Bush administration(now Obama too) want them released. That in itself is very strange and perhaps cause for concern.

None of this may convince you, and I'm not trying to actually. You are free to believe what you like of course, but I would suggest looking at all angles in forming your overall opinion. Maybe you have and that's that, and if so, then so be it.

I can see how some people might believe the "inside job" claims if they haven't fully explored around and taken a serious amount of time to read all aspects they can.

If a person doesn't seek out answers fully, they will tend to only hear the loudest voices. And if they form an opinion based on those loudest voices, they may be ill informed of the real truth behind the issue as sometimes the loudest voices are the ones in the wrong.

Thank you for your reply to my previous post Lemieux. I do wonder why you highlight the possible involvement of Bandar Bush but then speak against an inside job. Maybe it is in the definition of “inside job” or perhaps you just haven’t settled on a conclusion either side of the fence.

It certainly is true that we should fully explore and take time to consider all angles. Whether it be the Saudis, 'Al Qaeda', Bush administration, CIA or other, each have their own story and played a critical role in the lead up to the 9/11 attack. I think too many make the mistake of entirely accusing a specific group(s) and wholly exonerating the other(s).

I have researched evidence from all angles for over a decade and the picture is not so black and white. Even the nineteen hijackers can be broken down into contrasting groups. For instance, at least four of the hijackers (including al Mihdhar and al Hazmi, who received support from the Saudi network discussed in this thread) were longterm Al Qaeda associates connected to previous attacks, whilst the rest were of a different nature and only appeared on bin Laden’s doorstep much later in the timeline. Still, that shows there certainly was the involvement of “pizzed” off muslims and bin Laden. It is also important to understand that intelligence agencies were fully aware of their aims and were all over and inside this setup long before 9/11.

When we equally consider the extensive motive that existed within other groups, the assistance provided by the Saudi support network, the protection provided by elements of the CIA and a lot more reports and detail, the conclusion I have come to, the only conclusion that fully incorporates all of those angles, is that the “pizzed” off muslims and bin Laden were the victims of a grand entrapment.

Even on its own that describes an “inside job” as 9/11 does not go ahead as we know it without the elements of inside facilitation.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Q24

[Space Commander Travis]

Hi Q, haven't seen you in a long time

[toast]

So does and did anyone else who served in the military.

Exactly, so the cook at the WSMR canteen, the charladies at the SAC and the caretakers at the Pentagon as well.

"Has served in the Military/NASA etc" means nothing at the first place, its blablabla too often.

[bee]

When we equally consider the extensive motive that existed within other groups, the assistance provided by the Saudi support network, the protection provided by elements of the CIA and a lot more reports and detail, the conclusion I have come to, the only conclusion that fully incorporates all of those angles, is that the “pizzed” off muslims and bin Laden were the victims of a grand entrapment.

Even on its own that describes an “inside job” as 9/11 does not go ahead as we know it without the elements of inside facilitation.

Hey Q24...long time no see....

But maybe the 'Grand Entrapment' was the other way round and the Saudis played the Bush Administration and the CIA etc

for fools...and by doing so set the seeds for the accusations of 'Inside Job'...?...(deliberately)

This could be why Bush et al are so keen to keep it under wraps because (besides everything else) the incompetence

is a huge embarrassment...on a personal level and for the USA as a whole...also for the Republicans..

The saying...'Keep your friends close but your enemies closer'...seems to fit here from both sides... (USA + SA)

Maybe both sides..America and Saudi Arabia are actually sworn enemies not friends at all and are involved in political

and economic brinkmanship.....and a complicated game of double dealing...

.

[bee]

Here's an article that espouses that very thought.

I don't suscribe to this theory btw.

Just thought I would point it out, as I came across it the other day, and then I see your post here about the same idea.

"Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of “Get into Saudi Arabia free” card for the powers that be."

http://www.washingto...rdâ.html

And please note my words above that I do not suscribe to that particular idea... and that in itself has nothing to do with the fact that it's posted here in the washingtonsblog.com site.

I just don't particularly think that this is the reason for the pages being redacted. At this time anyways.

Cheers.

interesting article...thanks

I just thought of that possible angle as I was thinking about the thread..

not so much that this was the original motive for keeping the 28 pages classified..

but that the release could be turned to advantage, somehow....someday...

I'm tempted to say more about references to the Pentagon Refurbishment and the AMEC / Saudi connection..(in article)

but I will refrain from doing so because that will just lead to Off Topic posting and that is what happens on 9/11 threads...

everything is jogging along ok then it all goes hay-wire......

wonder why...hmmmmmmmm....

.