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

[toast]

I`m sure this thread was meant as a gift for ... oh no I will not say for whom no I will not.

[bee]

I`m sure this thread was meant as a gift for ... oh no I will not say for whom no I will not.

got a little conspiracy on the go, toast..?...

.

[DONTEATUS]

The only conspiracy "toast" has is Dont drink warm milk with your toast ! You might espload Lucy !

As for this thread Im always amazed Its lasted So long ! We all Know what happened ! It was on T.V. that sad morning ! Didnt you see it lve?

Oh, thats the problem, Now I see. People dont understand what actually happened that day on Sept,11 th .

Well heres a Factual insiders line on it !

" 4 Aircraft all taken over by terrorist did our country a lot of Loss & Damage." get a copy and watch it all End to End again !

And Really listen ,pay attention , Watch !

[toast]

got a little conspiracy on the go, toast..?...

.

:D

[DONTEATUS]

I know ! THe Twin Towers wernt Hit by the Aircraft ! THe Earth Spun into the Aircraft ! Issue Solved !

[Abaddonire]

I know ! THe Twin Towers wernt Hit by the Aircraft ! THe Earth Spun into the Aircraft ! Issue Solved !

Don't be silly. We know it was done by controlled demolition, except that we also know it was done by thermite. Or nano thermite or something termite. However we also know it was done by mini-nukes built into the structure at construction time, which cannot be true as we know those mini-nukes were in fact buried 75 meters below the towers, but we also know that those mini-nukes only went off as they were being secretly transferred through underground tunnels. All of this is rendered moot since we also know that it was all orchestrated by means of DEW space beams launched into orbit by heavy lift vehicles which nobody can identify. We also know that there were planes while simultaneously there were not. There were cruise missile while the were not and there were hijackers and there were not. The hijackers are all dead/some dead/all alive/ imaginary/CIA/Mossad/KGB or all of the above. Meanwhile, Obama did/did not do it and is/isn't alive and possibly living as Elvis in Las Vegas. Nevertheless, the evil chemcrap is evidence of the mindcontrol of the NWO agenda 21 which is no more than an obvious attempt by the PTB to cover up the fact that Obama is a Kenyan native chieftan, just because, and is hell bent on reducing the US population to a level which could not possibly sustain any civilisation because, hey, evil geniuses don't have to make any sense whatsoever. Not to worry, spraying vinegar in you garden will stop those evil things and youtube is utterly immune to those men in black. Meanwhile the now defunct HAARP is actually still operational and is messing with ur brainz. I have no data to explain how or why, but you can trust my unevidenced claim.

Have I left any crackpot claim out?

[Baz Dane]

I deleted the parts of your post that I either agree with or somewhat agree with.

The part that I bolded contains only proof that the crank website "Veterans Today" made the allegation. I've already expressed my disgust at that source.

Where you wrote. "I hope we learn more" I whole heartedly agree with. Something stinks in Denmark. I can believe that the afterhandling of 911 wasn't all so squeeky clean or above board as well (edit: ...once I'm provided with the facts. We could speculate 'til the cows come as to what's in those pages but I'd never take VT's slant as to what the time of the day was).

But yeah, as you said, "I hope we learn more."

About the bolded part... that's why I was sure to include the word "accusations"... so saying, at that time, "we also know there are accusations" would be correct. I believe you are insinuating that VT is the primary source for said accusation, but I would also refer you to this article from more closer to the timeframe from the New York Times, which I believe to be a little more credible than the Post, yes?

Note the date... The report and the 28 redacted pages wouldn't be publicly released until July 23, 2003. Internally(to government officials), I believe they had the report in Dec 2002 some time, but perhaps earlier?

At any rate, the point I'm getting at is that as of this particular article's release date, the investigation into the "accusations" is ongoing, and it's before the report is released and redacted.

Nov 26 2002

- The Bush administration vigorously defended the Saudi government today, describing it as cooperating fully in an investigation into payments from a Saudi princess that might have reached some Sept. 11 hijackers.

The Saudi princess is Prince Bandar's wife, Haifa.

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...-hijackers.html

I believe this can confirm that there were indeed accusations going around official circles in regards to Prince Bandar... through his wife. With the source material being being the information from the Intelligence services' investigations that are part of those redacted 28 pages.

I'm not sure exactly where and when those investigations ended... yet... but I would have to guess that after the pages were redacted, I don't imagine any more investigations were following through into any offical Saudi connections anymore.

I also hope we learn more. As you say, something stinks in Denmark. I agree with that statement

Cheers!

[Baz Dane]

I`m sure this thread was meant as a gift for ... oh no I will not say for whom no I will not.

I'm not quite sure what that means, but seeing as I started the thread, I can tell you that I did not set out to do anything nefarious or trying to bait a member or anything like that.

Nor is it meant as ammunition for some "truther movement"... I don't believe in all those conspiracies.

Even just looking into this topic of these redacted 28 pages shows that there were terrorists involved... The existence of funding trails shows that... So that would rule out the need for glamourous remote controlled planes, or the need for a missle.

Perhaps you know of an inside joke that my "nubieness" would not be aware of.

Anyways, I'm like the Grinch... no gifts from me

[Baz Dane]

Here's another interesting article from the past at the New York Times...

July 26 2003 - 2 days after the release of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry with the redacted 28 pages.

- Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it.

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...nal/26SAUD.html

[Baz Dane]

I found this to be a very interesting read...

I should mention that these are clips, and the full transcript is linked below.

Source and full transcript: http://fas.org/irp/c...cr/s102803.html

Looks like that amendment didn't work out for them though.

[Likely Guy]

,,,I also hope we learn more. As you say, something stinks in Denmark. I agree with that statement

Cheers!

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

[DONTEATUS]

Abbadabba got it right ! IT was termites !

[The Silver Thong]

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

What source isn`t in your opinion. If you say NIST then I say the same about your source.

Edited December 11, 2014 by The Silver Thong

[cjnewson88]

I would very much like to read the contents of the 28 pages, but I have a strong suspicion I already know what they are going to say.

Richard Clark, who I personally think is a highly credible and informative person, gave an interview a couple of years ago to some journalists. In it, he lay down his theory to make sense of certain sets of facts which we know are true. To me it makes perfect sense. I strongly suspect the 28 pages detail it.

[media=]

[/media]

For those who need additional explaining, I put this in the video description:

After learning of two al Qaeda terrorists travelling to the United States, the CIA set about trying to recruit them into being assets so that CIA could finally have someone on the inside giving them information. In order to do this, they couldn't approach them directly, so they got the Saudi Intelligence to recruit for them. In order for this to be successful, CIA top levels felt that no one else could know about this plan, so a decision was made to stop this information from getting to anyone outside CIA, including FBI, the White House, and the administration.

Eventually the CIA figured out that they had been taken for a ride; that the two al Qaeda members they thought they had turns into informants were actually playing both sides. It is at this point the CIA decide to tell the FBI, but because of the massive repercussions of hiding their business, they choose not to tell the White House or upper levels of FBI, even when they were begging for action against al Qaeda a week before September 11.

In effect, the CIA went into ass-covering mode prior to the attacks because they knew their plan had backfired and that if it ever came out they knew for a year in advance that al Qaeda members were inside the US and never gave that information to the White House, they would be reprimanded.

Edited December 11, 2014 by cjnewson88

[preacherman76]

It is clear that you have no clue as what it takes to demolish a steel frame building.

Sky, concentrate. 28 pages. Do you have a opinion, or are you gonna continue to cloud the water with info no one is talking about like you always do.

BTW folks, sky openly admits he works for the defense dept. Hmm

[RaptorBites]

BTW folks, sky openly admits he works for the defense dept. Hmm

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

What is your point?

[Q24]

Hi Lemieux,

Most of the answers to your questions are pretty implicit in the sources you have provided.

What information is in those 28 pages?

Broadly put - details of initial investigations the FBI and other agencies carried out into the money trail and relationship between Saudi state actors and the future 9/11 hijackers. In particular, former U.S. Senator Bob Graham has confirmed the 28 pages focus heavily on proceedings between Saudi government agent Omar Bayoumi and the two hijackers al Mihdhar and al Hazmi.

A few more details in short. Bayoumi was employed by a Saudi government contractor but carried out no apparent work and was described as a “ghost employee” by a colleague. Both the FBI and al Hazmi, independent of one another, believed that Bayoumi was a Saudi spy. Inside the United States, Bayoumi met with al Mihdhar and al Hazmi and then: -

• helped them to open a bank account
  
• paid their rental deposit
  
• co-signed their lease
  
• provided information on flight schools
  

Ten days after 9/11, Bayoumi was detained by British authorities for this involvement with the hijackers. U.S. authorities were quick to release Bayoumi, leaving British police to state in bemusement: “Giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offence and there is no way they would have let him go scot-free.”

The 9/11 Commission would later interview Bayoumi and, despite his story being inconsistent, speculate in their final report that his dealings with al Mihdhar and al Hazmi may have been chance/coincidence.

Former Senator Bob Graham commented: -

"That a suspected Saudi spy would drive 125 miles to a meeting at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, where he would meet with a consular officer with suspected terrorist ties, and then drive another 7 miles to the one Middle Eastern restaurant—out of more than 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles—where he would happen to sit next to two future terrorists, to whom he would happen to offer friendship and support, cannot credibly be described as a coincidence."

Of course it was not a coincidence! Both the Saudis and CIA had been following al Mihdhar and al Hazmi closely long before they entered the United States. There is no doubt that Bayoumi was directed to meet and assist the hijackers inside the country, all of which, evidence shows, occurred under protection of the CIA (a situation that infuriated the FBI – reference FBI agent Steve Bongardt).

So to answer the initial question a degree closer to the truth – the 28 pages contain certain details of a Saudi/U.S. intelligence operation surrounding two of the future 9/11 hijackers.

Why not release the 28 pages to the public?

Indeed why not release details of a Saudi/U.S. intelligence operation which provided assistance and protection to the hijackers prior 9/11.

Are allegations pointing to Bandar true?

Sorry I almost forgot about Bandar – in my opinion the real story appears to be in the details above. So reports suggest that the FBI uncovered a money trail between Bandar and al Mihdhar/al Hazmi. With some five intermediaries in the trail (one being Omar Bayoumi discussed above), I don’t believe there is a chance of demonstrating Bandar’s intent. Which perhaps is the degree of caution you would rightly expect from Bandar.

If so, would a follow-up trail lead to Bush?

As mentioned, I don’t see how through Bandar. And it does seem the long way around, to go through another country’s network, to reach Bush. Better to ask some pertinent questions closer to home - Cofer Black, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit in the lead up to 9/11. Find out exactly why CIA protection was provided to the hijackers and that Saudi support network, and who ordered it. Black was attending weekly meetings with Bush, Cheney, et al after all.

[skyeagle409]

Sky, concentrate. 28 pages. Do you have a opinion, or are you gonna continue to cloud the water with info no one is talking about like you always do.

BTW folks, sky openly admits he works for the defense dept. Hmm

I am now happily retired and running two aviation-related chapters.

Edited December 11, 2014 by skyeagle409

[Empty Garden]

Here's another interesting article from the past at the New York Times...

July 26 2003 - 2 days after the release of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry with the redacted 28 pages.

- Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it.

The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.

- The Bush administration's refusal to allow the committee to disclose the contents of the chapter has stirred resentment in Congress, where some lawmakers have said the administration's desire to protect the ruling Saudi family had prevented the American public from learning crucial facts about the attacks.

- Some people who have read the classified chapter said it represented a searing indictment of how Saudi Arabia's ruling elite have, under the guise of support for Islamic charities, distributed millions of dollars to terrorists through an informal network of Saudi nationals, including some in the United States.

- "In a 900-page report, 28 blanked-out pages are being used by some to malign our country and our people. Rumors, innuendos and untruths have become, when it comes to the kingdom, the order of the day." - Prince Bandar

I agree with him on this because those same rumours, innuendos are still existing today.

Answer... Release the documents.

- Behind the immediate issue of whether Saudi Arabia played any role in terrorism are a complex web of political, military and economic connections between the two countries. Successive Republican and Democratic administrations have aggressively sought to maintain the relationship with a huge producer of oil and an ally in the Arab world.

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...nal/26SAUD.html

I knew that Bush had fought to not have an investigation, but I did not know about his efforts to keep the Saudis out of it, though I am not surprised.

Yes, as another poster noted, even all these years after, the plot thickens.

[Obviousman]

BTW folks, sky openly admits he works for the defense dept. Hmm

And I am active military, just not the US. So what? How does that affect the veracity of things I say? How does anyone's job or religion or background change the worth of their words? Perhaps people should be asking what your background is....?

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? Answer the question!"

[bee]

July 26 2003 - 2 days after the release of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry with the redacted 28 pages.

- Some people who have read the classified chapter said it represented a searing indictment of how Saudi Arabia's ruling elite have, under the guise of support for Islamic charities, distributed millions of dollars to terrorists through an informal network of Saudi nationals, including some in the United States.

- Behind the immediate issue of whether Saudi Arabia played any role in terrorism are a complex web of political, military and economic connections between the two countries. Successive Republican and Democratic administrations have aggressively sought to maintain the relationship with a huge producer of oil and an ally in the Arab world.

Source: http://www.nytimes.c...nal/26SAUD.html

I would very much like to read the contents of the 28 pages, but I have a strong suspicion I already know what they are going to say.

Richard Clark, who I personally think is a highly credible and informative person, gave an interview a couple of years ago to some journalists. In it, he lay down his theory to make sense of certain sets of facts which we know are true. To me it makes perfect sense. I strongly suspect the 28 pages detail it.

[media=]

[/media]

For those who need additional explaining, I put this in the video description:

After learning of two al Qaeda terrorists travelling to the United States, the CIA set about trying to recruit them into being assets so that CIA could finally have someone on the inside giving them information. In order to do this, they couldn't approach them directly, so they got the Saudi Intelligence to recruit for them. In order for this to be successful, CIA top levels felt that no one else could know about this plan, so a decision was made to stop this information from getting to anyone outside CIA, including FBI, the White House, and the administration.

Eventually the CIA figured out that they had been taken for a ride; that the two al Qaeda members they thought they had turns into informants were actually playing both sides. It is at this point the CIA decide to tell the FBI, but because of the massive repercussions of hiding their business, they choose not to tell the White House or upper levels of FBI, even when they were begging for action against al Qaeda a week before September 11.

In effect, the CIA went into ass-covering mode prior to the attacks because they knew their plan had backfired and that if it ever came out they knew for a year in advance that al Qaeda members were inside the US and never gave that information to the White House, they would be reprimanded

cheers for that ...it makes sense to me as well...

the question, in my mind, is how deeply the Saudi Arabian Ruling Elite were involved in the actual 9/11 attacks...

I doubt this question will be publically explored by the US Govt....

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..?

But for now the Saudi Ruling Elite have their backs covered with the charity scam.... ..?

One thing for sure...if those 28 pages contained evidence for the 'Inside Job' accusations...

then those who have read it would definitely have made that public...

they would be duty bound to and in my mind would not hesitate to expose what would be High Treason...

.

[preacherman76]

Hi Lemieux,

Most of the answers to your questions are pretty implicit in the sources you have provided.

Broadly put - details of initial investigations the FBI and other agencies carried out into the money trail and relationship between Saudi state actors and the future 9/11 hijackers. In particular, former U.S. Senator Bob Graham has confirmed the 28 pages focus heavily on proceedings between Saudi government agent Omar Bayoumi and the two hijackers al Mihdhar and al Hazmi.

A few more details in short. Bayoumi was employed by a Saudi government contractor but carried out no apparent work and was described as a “ghost employee” by a colleague. Both the FBI and al Hazmi, independent of one another, believed that Bayoumi was a Saudi spy. Inside the United States, Bayoumi met with al Mihdhar and al Hazmi and then: -

• helped them to open a bank account
  
• paid their rental deposit
  
• co-signed their lease
  
• provided information on flight schools
  

Ten days after 9/11, Bayoumi was detained by British authorities for this involvement with the hijackers. U.S. authorities were quick to release Bayoumi, leaving British police to state in bemusement: “Giving financial aid to terrorists is a very serious offence and there is no way they would have let him go scot-free.”

The 9/11 Commission would later interview Bayoumi and, despite his story being inconsistent, speculate in their final report that his dealings with al Mihdhar and al Hazmi may have been chance/coincidence.

Former Senator Bob Graham commented: -

"That a suspected Saudi spy would drive 125 miles to a meeting at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, where he would meet with a consular officer with suspected terrorist ties, and then drive another 7 miles to the one Middle Eastern restaurant—out of more than 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles—where he would happen to sit next to two future terrorists, to whom he would happen to offer friendship and support, cannot credibly be described as a coincidence."

Of course it was not a coincidence! Both the Saudis and CIA had been following al Mihdhar and al Hazmi closely long before they entered the United States. There is no doubt that Bayoumi was directed to meet and assist the hijackers inside the country, all of which, evidence shows, occurred under protection of the CIA (a situation that infuriated the FBI – reference FBI agent Steve Bongardt).

So to answer the initial question a degree closer to the truth – the 28 pages contain certain details of a Saudi/U.S. intelligence operation surrounding two of the future 9/11 hijackers.

Indeed why not release details of a Saudi/U.S. intelligence operation which provided assistance and protection to the hijackers prior 9/11.

Sorry I almost forgot about Bandar – in my opinion the real story appears to be in the details above. So reports suggest that the FBI uncovered a money trail between Bandar and al Mihdhar/al Hazmi. With some five intermediaries in the trail (one being Omar Bayoumi discussed above), I don’t believe there is a chance of demonstrating Bandar’s intent. Which perhaps is the degree of caution you would rightly expect from Bandar.

As mentioned, I don’t see how through Bandar. And it does seem the long way around, to go through another country’s network, to reach Bush. Better to ask some pertinent questions closer to home - Cofer Black, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit in the lead up to 9/11. Find out exactly why CIA protection was provided to the hijackers and that Saudi support network, and who ordered it. Black was attending weekly meetings with Bush, Cheney, et al after all.

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

[preacherman76]

And I am active military, just not the US. So what? How does that affect the veracity of things I say? How does anyone's job or religion or background change the worth of their words? Perhaps people should be asking what your background is....?

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? Answer the question!"

If you spent as much time and effort distracting people with semi relevant to non relevant posts as sky does, Id certainly think you working for the defense dept was relevant. Especially considering its straight admitted that the defense dept has hired people from within to come to places just like this to do exactly what he does. Does that clear things up for ya?

Edit to add- My background? Im a New York Native, who has been forced to face some hard truths in regards to my government. Truths that involve incredible corruption, war crimes, to the point where they have become a domestic enemy to the constitution and in turn to the American people. I have never been a communist by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I even see how that question has any relevance. Im more of a Libertarian/Constitutionalist.

Edited December 11, 2014 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

cheers for that ...it makes sense to me as well...

the question, in my mind, is how deeply the Saudi Arabian Ruling Elite were involved in the actual 9/11 attacks...

I doubt this question will be publically explored by the US Govt....

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..?

But for now the Saudi Ruling Elite have their backs covered with the charity scam.... ..?

One thing for sure...if those 28 pages contained evidence for the 'Inside Job' accusations...

then those who have read it would definitely have made that public...

they would be duty bound to and in my mind would not hesitate to expose what would be High Treason...

.

There probably isn't any direct evidence of a inside job in the 28 pages. But the fact that we went this far in covering this up for SA speaks pretty loudly. To me anyway.

[Obviousman]

If you spent as much time and effort distracting people with semi relevant to non relevant posts as sky does, Id certainly think you working for the defense dept was relevant. Especially considering its straight admitted that the defense dept has hired people from within to come to places just like this to do exactly what he does. Does that clear things up for ya?

Edit to add- My background? Im a New York Native, who has been forced to face some hard truths in regards to my government. Truths that involve incredible corruption, war crimes, to the point where they have become a domestic enemy to the constitution and in turn to the American people. I have never been a communist by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I even see how that question has any relevance. Im more of a Libertarian/Constitutionalist.

You missed my point entirely. A person's background plays no part in the value of their words, except when they are speaking as an expert in a field.

I quoted the "Are you now or have you ever been.." question to illustrate why background plays no part. Get thee to Google and look up McCarthyism.