It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CONS: What the White House Wants to Hide

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+69 more 
posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:04 PM
What exactly is so sensitive that the Bush White House wants to keep hidden within CIA files of extracting information from terror suspects? The answer may be found in the following excerpt from my book “The Terror Conspiracy,” written in 2002 and finally published in full in 2006:

In the days following September 11, many major media pundits correctly pointed out that a ragtag bunch of fanatics could not have successfully pulled off the large-scale and well-coordinated attacks by themselves. They must have had the sponsorship of some state, they argued. It was this rationale that provided the foundation argument for the subsequent attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

One captured al Qaeda chief may have provided a startling answer to the question of who actually provided state sponsorship for the 9/11 attacks—most likely working hand-in-hand with cosponsors in the US as well as other US-connected foreign intelligence agencies including the Israeli Mossad and/or the Pakistani ISI (i.e., the Mossad and the ISI being the central intelligence agency equivalent in each country).

This “smoking gun” case links al Qaeda directly to Saudi Arabia. It came to light in late March 2002, with the capture of Abu Zubaydah in a middle-class suburb of the Pakistani city of Faisalabad. On April 2, 2002, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer described Zubaydah as the most senior member of al Qaeda captured to that point and stated, “He will be interrogated about his knowledge of ongoing plans to conduct terrorist activities. This represents a serious blow to al Qaeda.” [Ari Fleisher:,2933,49226,00.html]

But instead it appears to have been a serious blow to the Saudis. According to a new book by Gerald Posner entitled Why America Slept, Zubaydah turned out to be tightly connected with ranking Saudis, including members of the royal family.

Posner, a noted debunker of JFK assassination conspiracies, supported the official version of pre-9/11 intelligence failures in this new book, arguing that despite all the tax dollars spent, federal agencies simply couldn’t connect the dots. Posner has admitted being close to friendly CIA sources, which make his ensuing revelations that much more shocking.

According to Posner, when attempts to pry information out of Zubaydah with drugs failed, the al Qaeda chief was flown to an Afghan facility remodeled to look like a Saudi jail cell. Two Arab American Special Forces operatives, disguised as Saudis, then confronted Zubaydah. The idea was to scare him into revealing al Qaeda secrets. Recall that al Qaeda reportedly detests the Saudi royalty.

Yet, when faced by the faked Saudi interrogators, Zubaydah expressed relief rather than fear, according to Posner. He seemed genuinely happy to see them and offered them telephone numbers for ranking Saudi officials. One number was for Saudi Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a westernized nephew of Saudi King Fahd and a equestrian whose horse, War Emblem, won the 2002 Kentucky Derby. Zubaydah said Prince Aziz would vouch for him and give the interrogators instructions. The disguised Americans were shocked to find the unlisted Saudi numbers valid.

The Saudi Arabian-born al Qaeda leader then proceeded to outline his Saudi connections. He explained that one such contact in Saudi Arabia was intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, who met with Osama bin Laden in 1991 and agreed to provide bin Laden with funds in exchange for his pledge not to promote a jihad war in Saudi Arabia. He said his royal Saudi contacts operated through Pakistani Air Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir, a man with close ties to Muslims inside Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The ISI has long been suspected of providing al Qaeda with arms and supplies. And according to Posner, this convoluted pipeline was blessed by the Saudis. Zubaydah went on to claim that 9/11 did nothing to change the relationships between the Saudis, Pakistanis, and al Qaeda. He claimed that while both Prince Ahmed and Mir knew in advance of the attacks, they did not know the specific targets. They also would have been hesitant to reveal their secret agreements. [Abu Zubaydah: Gerald Posner, Why America Slept, (New York: Random House, 2003); Johanna McGeary, “Confessions of a Terrorist,” Time (Sept. 8, 2003)]

Posner also noted that not long after Zubaydah’s revelations were passed along to the Saudis, the men mentioned by Zubaydah all died within days of each other. Prince Ahmed died of a heart attack at age 43 on July 22, 2002, while two princes, Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud and Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al Kabir both were killed in car wrecks within a week of each other. Pakistani Air Marshal Mir died in a plane crash during clear weather. Posner told Time the deaths, most convenient to anyone desiring to keep the Saudi–Pakistani–al Qaeda axis hidden, “may in fact be coincidences.” [Posner quote: Ibid.]

Despite this remarkable information tying al Qaeda to Saudi royals and Pakistani intelligence published in a major US news magazine, very little of such coverage has made its way to the American public.

With the confession of the top al Qaeda chief, it becomes abundantly clear why the Bush White House wants this information kept from the public. People might begin to wonder about the close business and social connections between the Saudis and the bin Laden family in particular and the Bush family. After all, someone in high authority allowed bin Laden family members to fly across the US during the “no fly” period following the 9/11 attacks. Such authority had to come from the White House.

Jim Marrs

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:10 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words...


posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:24 AM
I'm dead serious with this :

The left man in the picture clearly has an erection in his pants.

Don't know what to think about that.
Some people have that in their most triumphant moments, I guess.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

I personally don't see it; it looks like after to me.

But seriously, I do remember reading the original article, which was, for lack of a better word, a doozy. The deaths all check out. All those censored pages from the 9/11 omission report. And those two traipsing in the bluebells.

They are laughing in our faces people.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:02 AM
Well, this is eye opening.

The Saudi connection I've always suspected, but not to the degree of intimate knowledge of the attack. I thought the Saudi Royal Family just threw money at al Qaeda in order to appease its activities in Saudi Arabia.

That being said, it seemed at the beginning that Mossad was being fingered as well, but nothing was elaborated. What was Mossad's role? Given the arrest soon after 9/11 of the Israeli "students" in America laughing on top of that building at the WTC attack, it always struck me that Mossad, at the very least, knew the attack was going to happen.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:13 AM
Wasn't this theory pretty much covered in Fahrenheit 911? I know I have heard a lot about the Saudi connection in the past. It is funny that Saudi Arabia was about 1000x more connected to 9/11 than Afghanistan or Iraq.... yet here we are.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:39 AM
Osama Bin Ladin's brother was in a lunch meeting with George's father, Bush senior, when the attacks happened. The Bin Ladin's were allowed to be flown out of the country during the grounding of all flights in the US. The Saudi ambassador to the US gave money to the hijackers through his wife. Arbusco and other Bush business mis-adventures were funded or bailed out by Saudi's. The list of damming evidence is long. Too long for comfort I am sure.

But if this is true, what is Saudi Arabia's motive? Why would they want to do this to the US? Do they not base their oil sales on the US dollar? Why would they want to do any damage to the economic institution that they subscribe to? Could it have been that they were merely acting as a 'helping hand', as they have so many times before, to another group?

It is an interesting thread and I look forward to hearing what other people have to say about it. Thanks for sharing Jim.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:42 AM
reply to post by Animal

I will admit that I haven't put a ton of thought into what the Saudis motives would be. What I think though is that they would have worked hand in hand with the US to allow 9/11 to happen so that a common enemy, Iraq, could be taken out.

The US had the power to do it, but the people wouldn't stand for it unprovoked. So the Saudis line Bush families pockets a little and devise a plan for a terrorist attack which would then build public support for an invasion of Iraq.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Animal
But if this is true, what is Saudi Arabia's motive? Why would they want to do this to the US? Do they not base their oil sales on the US dollar? Why would they want to do any damage to the economic institution that they subscribe to? Could it have been that they were merely acting as a 'helping hand', as they have so many times before, to another group?

I suspect it's all about preserving the royal family. A jihad declared against the Saudi Royal Family by Osama would/could cause a world of damage, perhaps dethroning the family from power. That in turn would be bad for us, for the mideast. And certainly for the cost of oil.

So the royal family does what it needs to do to persevere: Play both sides of the fence.

But there's another idea here, particularly those who theorize that the White House was involved in 9/11 planning. Get Osama bin Laden to execute a catastrophic attack and the U.S. has the blank check to obliterate the al Qaeda organization, thus relieving a thorn in the side of the Saudis as well as us.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:29 AM
Wahabi Islam is a particular sect that supports extremism, and murder of "infidels". President Shrub pointed out shortly after 9-11 in this quote
"our enemy is the wahabi sect of islam, The extremists".

It was soon after that someone pointed out to him "ah sir, the only place that wahabi is tolerated is Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia "(where it is the state religion)
"so no more mention of wahabi sir"

I think at that point, if shrub wasn't in the loop, then he even he would realize "whoa,... wait a second... the saudis support extrist muslim mosques? then that must mean.... OOPS"

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:48 AM
This is a very interesting revelation that certainly deserves more attention.

Everyone in the Media, as well as myself, expected the reason to be that they destroyed the tapes was to coverup up the methods of torture, but the tapes were destroyed because of the information and to coverup an even bigger conspiracy.

Here is Gerald Posner's article in the Huffington Post.

The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection

Great post Jim.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:34 PM
You people REALLY need to get a life. There's absolutely NO proof of anything you all imply other than the tapes were destroyed. There's as much chance that they were destroying tapes showing who was complicit in 9/11 as there is for them revealing who killed JFK.

What about when Hillary found the documents in her quarters after 3 YEARS!? Everything is not a conspiracy.

Why were they destroyed? Does it occur to you that maybe they wanted to protect the identities of those doing the interrogations so that they and their families couldn't be taken revenge on? Does it occur to you that maybe, JUST MAYBE, President Bush really has the best in his heart for his country? And that the Congressional Intelligence committee sees the SAME intelligence reports as the President?

AND, maybe he's walking with the Saudi because, though they aren't a friend, they are an ally in the MidEast in keeping the quotas high and preventing the others from causing havoc.

Please, let's keep our eye on the ball please? They are waging war on us. Bin-Laden himself has said he was responsible for 9/11 and wants 6 million more dead. If you believe he works for Bush, then there is no hope for you and I have a nice white vest for you.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:40 PM
Civility and Decorum are Required

I believe it is possible to disagree with other members without resorting to crass personal commentary.

Please prove me right.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Nunny
Why were they destroyed? Does it occur to you that maybe they wanted to protect the identities of those doing the interrogations so that they and their families couldn't be taken revenge on?

At the time they were destroyed, why would the CIA think that the tapes would ever see the light of day, let alone be made public? Keep in mind that it is treason to out a CIA operative and the media knows this. If they were made public they would have blurred out the faces.

That is not a reasonable excuse to destroy the tapes.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:02 PM
This IS an interesting connection, one that I would not rule out.

But the US shaking hands and making plans with the wrong people is still a serious crime, and it's frustrating that, even with all these connections, and all these witness testimonies, and all this EVIDENCE of a cover-up ensuing, that people just continue to accept things the way they are!

Plese, Jim Marrs, enlighten us on HOW we can take this to a mainstream public that doesn't care anymore?

I mean... not to be offensive to Jim, because I've read two of your books and you do very thourough research... which needs to be done.

But Where's the good news? Where's the tidbits on how we can make people aware of this information, and actually care? Where's the Dummies Guide to Ending Apathy? and while we're at it, I think Nunny needs the Dummie's Guide to Unwrapping the American Flag That's Tightly Wound Around My Face.

No offense, Nunny. Happens to the best of us. We're all in need of Dummies Guides To Fixing the Universe, but one step at a time.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:28 PM
Why is this topic flagged and starred so ridiculously high? I'd say that's a conspiracy in itself.

Oh wait -- Jim Marrs is the topic creator. No wonder.

To comment on the topic at hand, I do think that is a pretty good possibility. IIRC, the courts are currently trying to pursue the White House, are they not? I wonder how long it will be before they are told to stand down.

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by SonicInfinity

Actually I think it's the content that makes it such a hit in terms of flags and stars. That's the reason I flagged and starred it. I have no idea who Jim Marrs is or why he's significant. But the content is good, and certainly fits a conspiracy.

On topic, I don't really have anything to say that hasn't been said. So instead I'll just add a link to a related thread by JacKatMtn that hasn't received much attention:
60% of Foreign Insurgency from Allies Saudi Arabia & Libya

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by Beachcoma

Jim Marrs is a New York Times Best Selling Author, a friend and the author of the soon to be released, FIRST, Official "" book.


posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:48 PM
Great read.

The thing that always gets me is:

A guy like order to get his hands on insider-information, he has to be close enough to close that you dont know if the information is not biased in their favour. The paradox is...once he does disclose stuff revealed to him, they wont reveal any more to him because he has broken their trust in favour of journalism.

So, the problem guys like him face is "Do I tell the truth and thereby risk never being shown anymore intelligence-information by my friends?"

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:52 PM
It is certainly more than likely that the tapes could have revealed material too sensitive to be distributed, even within certain circles of government and the intelligence community, much less to the public.

When I first heard about the tapes being destroyed, I knew it had nothing to do with waterboarding. This interrogation method is no secret and has been discussed before. Hasn't Bush already "legalized" it anyhow. I don't think there's an American out there who would be surprised to see proof that the method was applied. So what's to cover up there? Not much. No reason to destroy the tapes.

This thread has started discussing what may have been on the tapes, but last week I started a thread that took a different tack. More along the lines of what would not have been found on the tapes. What you would not have found perhaps, is clear evidence that al-Qaeda was clearly and entirely responsible for 9/11. [Click here] to visit my thread. My interpretation is not based on "insider" sources, but statements made by the former CIA officer who was actually there.

The ring of mysterious deaths is certainly proof of conspiracy. What are the odds of all those accidents actually being accidents? Furthermore, I have been wondering about the bin-Laden family flights after 9/11 since I first learned about them. Why should they be given such special privilege? I bet a governor couldn't even get special permission to get off the ground under the circumstances. The fact that they were given this privilege is proof that Bush knew there was a bin-Laden connection, and that the family needed to be "protected." From vengeance seekers perhaps, wanting some lynch-mob justice on them? I doubt it. They could have been, and should have been protected. In fact they should have been interrogated, but that's not quite my point here. If Bush knew the connection so immediately, how is it possible that no one knew it was coming? Furthermore, how could he have possibly known based on evidence at the scene? Okay, maybe OBL was the prime suspect, but you don't know for sure until you have physical evidence. It just doesn't make any sense. Bush knew who did it before the investigation even really began yet never saw it coming?

[edit on 12/21/0707 by jackinthebox]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in