Who Says it Was Al Qaida?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Now back to the topic. Al Qaeda was the hired help for the CIA/Bush admin plot.

It is far more likely (as stated before but you Libs can't read) that the bombings were carried out by Al Qaeda but with the knowledge of the Saudi security services.

Remember the Al Qaeda cell which escaped jail - supposedly with inside help?
Remember the US embassy closing?

The Saudi princes need to retain their power over the population. The only way they can do this is to make the extremists look like the enemy of the ordinary man in the street. What better way than to get your enemy to hit them?
Why do you assume that the CIA has to be involved? Give the Saudis some credit for black ops.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Please Leveller, ECK is right, your constant mental sexual meanderings about me are clouding your reason and logic, stop insulting ECK and quit picturing me in a PVC racoon suit and get on with the damn debate!

And no, Im not going to your moldy swampy island of overtaxed everything to pick up Saddam, I am going retrieve my certain someone, then meet saddam in Amsterdamn for a bowl of hash and a quiet discussion of whether or not that really is you in that purple dinosaur outfit singing "I Love you, you love me".

Now back to the topic. Al Qaeda was the hired help for the CIA/Bush admin plot.

She burned you again, dude. She's right, though. Absolutely right. And by the way, you havn't offered an ounce of proof to back up your position. Pretty weak. But then again, all you've done is attack those who can think for themselves.

That's funny. I would say that if you change the name that about sums up my opinion of everything that you post.

thing only thing you have managed to spew out is personal attacks...ohh and your counter for any reasonable point of view put before you all you manage to come up with is..."thats liberal propaganda"

Come on, Leveller, explain to us how it is that half of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive..

You CAN'T.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
She burned you again, dude.

She's right, though. Absolutely right. And by the way, you havn't offered an ounce of proof to back up your position. Pretty weak. But then again, all you've done is attack those who can think for themselves.

Nice ass-kissing there dude. I'm proud of you.
(Smacks a little bit of hypocrisy yet again though).

As for proof. May I suggest that you stay off your left wing bull# sites for a while. You'll find most of the theory that I have is on mainstream media sites.
Obviously, unlike you, I'm not stating that my theory is fact. I wouldn't be so arrogant.
But if you go and look at how the Saudi regime runs it's country you will find this to be a far more reasonable explanation.
Of course Al Qaeda could have carried out this attack and done so unaided, but that wouldn't be a conspiracy then would it?

Oh Leveller, I have little doubt the Saudis had thier fingers in the pie too.

Why do I assume the CIA is involved? Because this kind of crap is exactly up thier alley.

And when you consider CIA operations in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, plus past associations with them.......

Im sure the Saudis might have had some hand, if nothing else. financing most of it. The have financed the vast majority of terror attacks before, and we cannot forget thier reaction to the two attacks on thier own soil against our troops.

But the Saudis, well, lets just say that thier militayr, let alone black ops, couldnt pull 9/11 off in thier own country with crop dusters crashing into a pile of rocks, let alone what was done in New York.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Oh Leveller, I have little doubt the Saudis had thier fingers in the pie too.

Why do I assume the CIA is involved? Because this kind of crap is exactly up thier alley.

And when you consider CIA operations in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, plus past associations with them.......

Im sure the Saudis might have had some hand, if nothing else. financing most of it. The have financed the vast majority of terror attacks before, and we cannot forget thier reaction to the two attacks on thier own soil against our troops.

But the Saudis, well, lets just say that thier militayr, let alone black ops, couldnt pull 9/11 off in thier own country with crop dusters crashing into a pile of rocks, let alone what was done in New York.

Anyone can fly an aeroplane Skadi - five year old kids can fly Jumbos thanks to Microsoft.

Just because the CIA has a history doesn't mean that they were guilty on this one. The fact that the embassy closed suggests that they knew something was coming but didn't know where - if they knew the details they wouldn't have closed the embassy.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
She burned you again, dude.

She's right, though. Absolutely right. And by the way, you havn't offered an ounce of proof to back up your position. Pretty weak. But then again, all you've done is attack those who can think for themselves.

Nice ass-kissing there dude. I'm proud of you.
(Smacks a little bit of hypocrisy yet again though).There ya go again. Non-intelligent attacks. Skadi burned ya, man. Over and over. If I were you, I'd leave her alone. But then again, it's pretty funny.

As for proof. May I suggest that you stay off your left wing bull# sites for a while. You'll find most of the theory that I have is on mainstream media sites.Yes, that's quite apparent.
Obviously, unlike you, I'm not stating that my theory is fact. That's good, because it is a FACT that half the supposed hijackers are ALIVE right now. You wouldn't know that, though, because you are a lemming. Bark FIDO! Here's your biscuit.I wouldn't be so arrogant.
But if you go and look at how the Saudi regime runs it's country you will find this to be a far more reasonable explanation.Unlike you, I actually have been there. So you can spare me your nonsense.
Of course Al Qaeda could have carried out this attack and done so unaided, but that wouldn't be a conspiracy then would it?

I can see you have nothing original or intelligent to add. So much for trying. At least you're good for comic relief.

The fact that the embassy closed suggests that they knew something was coming but didn't know where - if they knew the details they wouldn't have closed the embassy.

why would they have not closed the embassy?? what "facts" do you have on this??

Not so, leveller. Not how they were flown.

And Saudis are not smart enough to be compared to your average five year old.

Mind you, we dont even know the identities of all the hijackers, as 7 have been found to be alive and well.

However, this whole thing has the smell of the CIA all over it. If a thief who prowls your neighborhood and has been stealing hondas, and one day, ypou find your honda missing, its safe to say, tis the same thief.

Closing of an Embassy means nothing. they knew where the attacks were to take place. Its all a little show here and there.

The fact that the hijackers were red flagged, yet investagators were ordered to stop tracking them tells you something.

The way I see it,

Cia, who has always had its ears open in the middle east, picked up on this plot years before it happened. They saw value in it as a means to justify future goals. So, they continued to monitor and listen to the Saudis, even steered them in the right direction, indirectly. Monitoring, making sure those chosen for the task met with no imprediments to thier plans. The Saudis unaware of how they were being watched and monitored, continue to send money and funds to the terrorists, who continue to work on thier plan. The people involved have been working, waiting, ect.

Even so far as indirectly helping to finance.

The American govornment would kill 3000 of its own citizens to further its long term plans and goals. 9/11 to them was an acceptable loss, because now we have a nation more paranoid than ever in absolute support of just about any invasion, and we have a precedent for setting up preemptive strikes.

I dont understand why this is so hard for you to understand. I surely hope you dont think the American govornment is a benign philanthropic entity that actually cares about its citizens.

Excellent analysis, Skadi. And what about the Mossad agents - The Dancing Isrealis - who were caught filming the twin towers' destruction?

I posit someone at the highest levels of our government had to be involved. Why? The little matter of NORAD standing down. That cannot be explained away. If you look at the example of Golfer Payne Stewart's aircraft that went off course, it was intercepted immediately, according to strict aviation guidelines. On 9-11 NORAD was AWOL. Rather than firing Gen. Richard Myers, the commander, he was PROMOTED. That stinks to high heaven. There are actually so many questions that remain unanswered it's appalling.

And one more comment for leveller, If I were you, I'd make it a new practice to read information from across the right/left spectrum. If you only stick to your own narrow, partisan view, you will never learn anything. You are stuck in the BIG LIE and are completely blinde to it.

Originally posted by sirCyco
why would they have not closed the embassy?? what "facts" do you have on this??

No. Look at it the other way. Why would you close the embassy?
The argument is stronger because the embassy is normally open. Logic.

If you knew where the attack was coming from wouldn't it be easier to just ignore it and act shocked when the attacks did happen? By closing the embassy you lose some of the shock factor as people are bracing themselves for an attack and hardening themselves for the effects. For terrorism to work properly it relies heavily on the shock factor. Look how 9/11 worked. They didn't go around at the time saying we're going to be hit. If they had people would have been able to brace themselves.


Skadi - You underestimate the Saudi regime. The fact that they've been able to retain power longer than anyone else in the Middle East should tell you that they know a thing or two about the way things work. Yes the US has/had some input but it's dangerous to believe that they are puppets. Those guys are fighting for their survival and they'll probably go to any length to retain power.

East Coast Git - I'm getting bored of calling you BORING. (You are though).
And I suggest you learn to read. I said "most of my theory". That doesn't mean I don't read the words of my enemies.

[Edited on 19-11-2003 by Leveller]

Look how 9/11 worked. They didn't go around at the time saying we're going to be hit.

publicly no they didnt say anything....but there is some evidence that people were indeed informed about the attacks in advance.

[Edited on 11-19-2003 by sirCyco]

Leveller, you still havn't said a damn thing. And you know what, to someone who has no thirst for knowledge or any desire to learn, I would agree, I am probably boring. You can't hang. So maybe when you grow up a little....

Originally posted by sirCyco
Look how 9/11 worked. They didn't go around at the time saying we're going to be hit.

publicly no they didnt say anything....but there is some evidence that people were indeed informed about the attacks in advance.

[Edited on 11-19-2003 by sirCyco]

Many nations gave us advance warning. Not to mention the fact that the Mossad and CIA knew full well the movements of those involved. And Skadi was right when she mentioned that the FBI was told to back off on their investigations. John O'Neill quit over it. Then was killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Many nations gave us advance warning.

*sigh*
The difference is that you didn't act on it.
You didn't close a bakery, let alone an embassy.

The difference is that you didn't act on it.

they just told they people they cared about not to come to work that day...and let the rest take their chances

Here's a great place to start if you wanna do some serious research into 9-11. This is solid.

There's Something About Omar:
Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11
by Chaim Kupferberg
www.globalresearch.ca , 21 October 2003
The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was almost an afterthought. On March 1, 2003, the War On Terror had finally served up the alleged paymaster of 9/11 - a shadowy Saudi by the name of Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi. Yet his arrest just happened to coincide with the capture of a much bigger fish - the reported 9/11 mastermind himself, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - thus relegating Mustafa Ahmed to the footnote section of the "official" 9/11 Legend. But there was another, more explosive side to this tale. Only seventeen months before, a former London schoolboy by the name of Omar Saeed Sheikh was first exposed as the 9/11 paymaster, acting under the authority of a Pakistani general who was in Washington D.C. on September 11, meeting with the very two lawmakers who would subsequently preside over the "official" 9/11 congressional inquiry. Omar Saeed, as reported back then by CNN, was acting under the alias of...Mustafa Ahmed. So where is Omar now? Sitting in a Pakistani prison, awaiting his execution for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl - while another man fills the shoes of his pseudonym. What follows is a reconstruction of one of the most extensive disinformation campaigns in history, and the chronicle of a legend that may now shine a devastating spotlight on some of the cliques behind 9/11 - and the FBI Director covering the paper trails.



"The hijackers left no paper trail," proclaimed FBI Director Robert Mueller on April 30, 2002. "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper...that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." Yet in the weeks immediately following September 11, Mueller and his FBI had left the public with a very different impression - an impression that conjured the vision of truckloads of paper documents pointing any number of ways to the culpability of Osama Bin Laden for the events of 9/11. For one, there was the infamous handwritten "checklist" found not only in hijacker Mohamed Atta's abandoned luggage, but also in the car rented in hijacker al-Hazmi's name, discovered at Dulles Airport, and which included lofty Arabic prayers alongside last minute reminders to bring "knives, your will, IDs, your passport, all your papers." But more importantly, the treasure trove in al-Hazmi's glove compartment yielded a paper trail that led all the way to London - and to the arrest of a potentially major suspect.

On September 30, 2001, as reported in the Telegraph by David Bamber, British prosecutor Arvinda Sambir announced that authorities had arrested Lotfi Raissi, whose name was found in al-Hazmi's rental. A further search of Raissi's apartment had yielded up a video clip starring Raissi with alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour - all in all, another circumstantial slam-dunk in the snowballing case against al-Qaida. Or was it? For by April of 2002 - when Mueller made his "paper trail" declaration - Raissi would go free for want of evidence.
The rest:
www.globalresearch.ca...

vtuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuj

;l;lln;';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';' ;';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';' ;';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';';'