It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Evidence, Coincidence or ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Came across this quote from the Economist...
and i thought to myself if this is not evidence or a coincidence... then what is it?
Certainly nothing that can be debunked, it's a well established fact of the public record.

"ON the day Osama bin Laden's men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya's move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defense spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group's investments in defense companies."

Evidence, Coincidence or ?




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Supposedly Osama is just the "black sheep" of the Bin Laden family.. the Carlyle groups Bush/Bin Laden connection has been documented, but the Bin Laden's are one of the richest families in Saudi.. and of course the Bush's are an obvious (by now) counterpart.. there is nothing to suggest that the Bush family and the Bin Laden family were involved with anything other than the common interest of gaining wealth.. they had been in business with each other for years..



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
ok so you are saying that there is nothing suspicious going on here...
nothing out of the ordinary... nothing to make you stop and reflect?

Osama's brother just happens to be meeting with
former u.s. president and head of CIA, senior bush and former sec or state, baker
at Caryle Group (defense contractor that benefited the most from the attack)
the morning Osama orchestrates 911 from a cave.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
ok so you are saying that there is nothing suspicious going on here...
nothing out of the ordinary... nothing to make you stop and reflect?

Osama's brother just happens to be meeting with
former u.s. president and head of CIA, senior bush and former sec or state, baker
at Caryle Group (defense contractor that benefited the most from the attack)
the morning Osama orchestrates 911 from a cave.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]


I'm not saying that at all.. I'm saying that prior to 911 the Bush's and the Bin Laden's were major shareholders in the Carlyle group.. a defense contractor..
there is a lot to be suspicious of here.. but it's not that bizarre to say that Osama was in direct opposition to his families ties to the US.. there is no proof that any of the "other" Bin Laden's were involved.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
ok so you are saying that there is nothing suspicious going on here...
nothing out of the ordinary... nothing to make you stop and reflect?

Osama's brother just happens to be meeting with
former u.s. president and head of CIA, senior bush and former sec or state, baker
at Caryle Group (defense contractor that benefited the most from the attack)
the morning Osama orchestrates 911 from a cave.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]


According to the FBI there's not enough evidence to say osama did it in the first place hence the reason he's not on the FBI's most wanted list unless that recently changed.

I would assume that's why nobody cares first of all and second of all Osama was the black sheep and didn't play by the family rules.

My question would be did they decided to pin it on him so the family could legaly have themselves separated from him by making him out to be a really bad guy and severing all ties and connections to him in a way that makes it look like he turned his back on his family and not the other way around. After all family squables can get quite complicated lol...



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I think you guys are grossly over looking the odds here...
what are the chances that of all families that the Bush's could be close partners with in the world it comes down to the Bin Ladens?

Both families and their associates have benefited financially from 911.
How are they not part of the same story/objective?
...because Osama is apparently a "black sheep"... whom we can't find?

This for me is so blatantly bizarre... that on this one simple well known fact, people are not motivated to dig deeper.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Except for a few things. Your post makes it sound like there were six or seven guys at this meeting when there were a few dozen shareholders (or more) present. Daddy Bush had already left said meeting before the airplanes started hitting their targets that day. There is no evidence or witnesses to any contact between Shafiq Bin Laden or George Bush. In addition, Shafiq liquidated his holdings in the Carlyle Group in October 2001.

Then there is the Carlyle Group. Few people realize (or bother to look) that the first 8 months of the Bush Administration were not kind to the Group. Cuts were made in a few weapons systems and other programs that cost Carlyle quite a bit of money.

THEN there is the repeated falsehood that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the US while all other flights were grounded. Yes, the Bin Laden family were flown to one location in the US, so the FBI would have a chance to interview them. They ended up leaving the US on September 20, 2001 AFTER air travel had resumed.



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
swamp are you pulling this out of your... you know what...
or do you actually have unbiased sources for what you claim?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Well I guess that would get down to what you consider an unbiased source. Richard Clarke is the gentleman who testified in front of the 9/11 Commission that the Bin Ladens did not leave the country until after the air travel ban was lifted. So...what do you consider an "unbiased" source?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
From what source did you get that bit of info from?

Here's the segment from clarke's testimony before the 911 commission
(March 24, 2004 - 13:30 ET) transcripts.cnn.com...


ROEMER: I've been very impressed with your memory, sitting through all these interviews the 9/11 commission has conducted with you. I press you, again, to try to recall how this request originated. Who might have passed this on to you at the White House situation room? Or who might have originated that request for the United States government to fly out -- how many people in this plane?

CLARKE: I don't know.

ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia?

CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference. I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know.

ROEMER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. KEAN: Senator Gorton?

GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect? Or was that over; were we flying once again?

CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo, the grounding, was still in effect.


[edit on 27-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   

posted by Swampfox46_1999
THEN there is the repeated falsehood that the Bin Laden family was allowed to leave the US while all other flights were grounded. Yes, the Bin Laden family were flown to one location in the US, so the FBI would have a chance to interview them. They ended up leaving the US on September 20, 2001 AFTER air travel had resumed.


posted by The All Seeing I
swamp are you pulling this out of your... you know what...
or do you actually have unbiased sources for what you claim?


posted by Swampfox46_1999
Well I guess that would get down to what you consider an unbiased source. Richard Clarke is the gentleman who testified in front of the 9/11 Commission that the Bin Ladens did not leave the country until after the air travel ban was lifted. So...what do you consider an "unbiased" source?


posted by The All Seeing I
From what source did you get that bit of info from?

Here's the segment from clarke's testimony before the 911 commission
(March 24, 2004 - 13:30 ET) transcripts.cnn.com...



GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect? Or was that over; were we flying once again?

CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo, the grounding, was still in effect.



RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISER: under oath before the Kean Commission hearings


Source Mr Swampfox? How is it that your material is different than the transcripts from the 9-11 Kean Commission hearings? Do you suddenly consider Richard Clarke an unreliable source?

I don't recall seeing you post your source for your remarkable claim. Did you assume nobody would check?



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Very odd and peculiar, I think. The whole timing of the meeting/exchange and the attacks is very alarming if nothing else.

However, this is old news. It was stated in the movie Fahrenheit 911, as well as mentioned here at ATS before.

Threads where this was previously mentioned:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And a couple others as well if I'm not mistaken.


Also, do you have the source link for the Economist quote?


[edit on 27/10/2008 by agent violet]



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Will the following work as a source regarding the Saudi citizens that left America just after the events of 9.11.01

LOOK HERE



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Will the following work as a source regarding the Saudi citizens that left America just after the events of 9.11.01

LOOK HERE



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

posted by agent violet
Also, do you have the source link for the Economist quote?



The Carlyle Group
Jun 26th 2003
From The Economist print edition

ON the day Osama bin Laden's men attacked America, Shafiq bin Laden, described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an investment conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close to President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and James Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal campaign that secured Dubya's move to the White House. The conference was hosted by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of dollars, including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also employs Messrs Bush and Baker.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being allowed in or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family in America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of defence spending that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group's investments in defence companies. …
www.economist.com...
www.prorev.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Uhm, no. Thanks though. But your Snopes link isn't what I'm looking for because I don't dispute the fact that the meeting took place. And even if I did dispute it, I wouldn't take Snopes as a reliable source.


I'm looking for the quote from the Economist, that the OP spoke of.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Perfect! Thank you.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by agent violet
 


Now go read all the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission Report which states exactly what is listed on the Snopes site.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Summary from the Harvard Int Review The Saudi Flights Revisited July 2008


The Tampa Tribune article that broke the story and the Vanity Fair piece that expanded it are essentially correct in their representation of the facts, but afterwards a preponderance of official discourse—from the White House, the FBI, the FAA, and the 9/11 Commission—overwhelmed their account and fostered a dismissal of unflattering findings. The Saudi flights are thus another instance in which official discourse modifies the record from correct to incorrect, sometimes permanently. In the present case, once one has sorted through the labyrinthine disinformation, redactions, and denials, the available evidence indicates that the Saudi flights occurred as reported; that the Tampa flight had special dispensation to fly before national airspace was reopened to general aviation; that the White House, and probably the President, approved the evacuation; that the FBI assisted with the logistics of the flights; that the FBI interviewed less than a quarter of the passengers, and these interviews were cursory; and that Saudis who had information of interest to the 9/11 investigation, if only information about funding networks, were inappropriately allowed to leave the country.


Full details to support this claim are provided in the article.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Uhm, no. Thanks though. But your Snopes link isn't what I'm looking for because I don't dispute the fact that the meeting took place. And even if I did dispute it, I wouldn't take Snopes as a reliable source.


I'm looking for the quote from the Economist, that the OP spoke of.



I was not attempting to show that the meeting did not take place. I was showing that the rumors that people were flown out of the U.S. before the ban was lifted on the 13th are untrue. Even a plane with organs was forced down.

Why is snopes not a good source? When have they been wrong about something or shown a bias? They quote relevant sources and provide links to the info they gather.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join