If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

It may be possible that all the technical reports are wrong and there was some as-yet undiscovered reason for the buildings' collapse. It may very well be the case the majority of the hijackers were tricked and didn't know it was a suicide mission, which means the REAL number of suicide hijackers would be eight (the rest being murder victims of the hijackers themselves). I'd even be willing to consider the possibility the planes were actually hijacked by some domestic Timothy McVeigh type radical group and Mohammed Atta, et al, was simply blamed because they were muslim.

I'm open to other possibilities, but the thing is that I'd want at least *some* proof to back the claim up, and I do not accept innuendo, selective quote editing, rhetorical questions, and outright lies, as evidence, and so far, every single piece of truther "evidence" has always turned out to be outright embellishment upon closer examination.

Reading this, I realize that we're actually much closer in our thinking than I thought. I do disagree with the last part of the last sentence, as you would probably expect, but the rest is dead on. We're starting with some basic assumptions that are in disagreement, but ultimately we're fighting the same fight.

Here's what I see as our differences:

1. I can't say that I know with certainty what the government (or anyone with lots of power and money) is or is not capable of - in both a logistic and moral sense.

2. You have a chip on your shoulder against the truth movement - I can recognize the reasons for that, though I don't share it.

3. I have a chip on my shoulder against people with lots of power and money - I hope you can recognize some of my reasons for that, though you may not share it to the same extent.

Because of this, I'll keep tending towards suspicious possibilities, and you'll keep tending towards innocuous possibilities. I think there's a lot of evidence for both, and a lack of total proof for either. So we'll keep arguing, but I think now that we both see problems with some aspects of the "official story," and we're both looking for the truth.

As an example: you asked me if the sources I go to told me that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Yes, they have. They've also told me that 11 of them got visas through a questionable, possibly CIA-run program at the US Consulate office in Jeddah (sources). Maybe that's all coincidence. It makes me suspicious. And it's one of countless details, from perfectly legitimate sources, that seems suspicious to me just in the background story of the hijackers alone.

To come back to the question of scamming - I'll concede that there are scammers involved in the truth movement, and that there are surely people who have been scammed. The assertion I disagree with is that the truth movement as a whole, or as a concept, is a scam. I also disagree with the implication that I've been scammed. I do remember the Y2K craziness, and I see your point in terms of people taking advantage of urban legends, but I think this is different in a lot of ways.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
You wrote "Every single piece of truther evidence has ALWAYS turned out to be outright embellishment upon closer examination", and yet we are to believe that you're here on ats to 'put the record straight?' What a crock. Your agenda is showing, again.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You wrote "Every single piece of truther evidence has ALWAYS turned out to be outright embellishment upon closer examination", and yet we are to believe that you're here on ats to 'put the record straight?' What a crock. Your agenda is showing, again.

I wonder if GoodOlDave's critique includes the forced WTC 7 freefall admission included in the NIST report... ha ha ha.

NIST relying on embellished truther evidence? Noooooo!

It's not all black and white.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Thanks. You've stated clearly what I've requested. Good luck with your mission to delay the inevitable, although not having the truth on your side is going to make it very difficult. The holes in your story increase by the day.

Yeah, 9/11 Truth is literally on the verge of victory. One reads about it everywhere, and every court case it fights it wins. Soon the history books will be rewritten.

Having said that, it doesn't matter, because according to you the world ended last december so I guess what I'm experiencing now is just a dream or something.

Originally posted by magicrat
Here's what I see as our differences:

1. I can't say that I know with certainty what the government (or anyone with lots of power and money) is or is not capable of - in both a logistic and moral sense.

All right, let's start with this- do you or do you not agree that physics apply to whatever the gov't does every bit as much as it applies to the rest of us? Whenever someone makes the suggestion that some clandestine gov't operation was able to violate the laws of physics, are we at liberty to dismiss the accusation as being improbable?

2. You have a chip on your shoulder against the truth movement - I can recognize the reasons for that, though I don't share it.

I wouldn't call it a "chip on my shoulder" precisely, as it implies I feel I'm somehow superior to the truthers. I have always said the truthers are by and large intelligent and articulate people, and in fact I'm fond of quoting George Orwell when he says there are some ideas so very wrong that only the very intelligent could believe in them. My position is that it's simply the case that the truthers are getting heavily edited propaganda from these conspiracy authors (I.E. Dylan Avery) and they're being prevented from forming a balanced opinion on their own.

You are obviously an intelligent person who's been here for a while, so I suspect you can come up with your own examples of this.

3. I have a chip on my shoulder against people with lots of power and money - I hope you can recognize some of my reasons for that, though you may not share it to the same extent.

I think everyone will say they have a chip on their shoulder against moneyed powers. Its just that everyone has a dfferent opinion on what a "moneyed power" is. To me, it's the inhuman practices of billion dollar mortgage companies who care more about their balance sheet and their stock holders than the people they're destroying. Others' think it's the "secret Jewish World order", and I've even seen people think it's "anyone who has more money than they do".

This is irrelevent to the discussion at hand, though.

Because of this, I'll keep tending towards suspicious possibilities, and you'll keep tending towards innocuous possibilities. I think there's a lot of evidence for both, and a lack of total proof for either. So we'll keep arguing, but I think now that we both see problems with some aspects of the "official story," and we're both looking for the truth.

I agree with this so I cannot add anything more.

As an example: you asked me if the sources I go to told me that 15 of the hijackers were Saudi citizens. Yes, they have. They've also told me that 11 of them got visas through a questionable, possibly CIA-run program at the US Consulate office in Jeddah Maybe that's all coincidence. It makes me suspicious. And it's one of countless details, from perfectly legitimate sources, that seems suspicious to me just in the background story of the hijackers alone.

According to your own sources, Michael Springman was only commenting on supposed "CIA activity" he witnessed entirely back in 1987-1989, and he says himself this was to funnel anti-Soviet fighters into the US to train to fight in the Afghan war, which I cannot discount. However it seems to me this whole "suspicious CIA connection" bit is rather contrived, particularly when it's a given that *every* US Consulate in the world handles clandestine CIA business, not just the one in Jeddah, but the US consulate in Jedda is necessarily the one where Saudi nationals applying for a student visa would need to go.

Link to the US Consulate in Jeddah web site

Do you see what I mean about "heavily edited propaganda"?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

 

I wonder if GoodOlDave's critique includes the forced WTC 7 freefall admission included in the NIST report... ha ha ha.

I thought you truthers refused to accept anything the NIST reports says as being credible. Why are you quoting it if you don't believe it's true?

...or is this one of those "Do as I say and not as I do" sort of things?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right, let's start with this- do you or do you not agree that physics apply to whatever the gov't does every bit as much as it applies to the rest of us? Whenever someone makes the suggestion that some clandestine gov't operation was able to violate the laws of physics, are we at liberty to dismiss the accusation as being improbable?

Yes and yes. I completely agree. I expect to argue with you in the future about what violates the laws of physics and what doesn't, but that's definitely a good place of agreement to start from.

I wouldn't call it a "chip on my shoulder" precisely, as it implies I feel I'm somehow superior to the truthers. I have always said the truthers are by and large intelligent and articulate people, and in fact I'm fond of quoting George Orwell when he says there are some ideas so very wrong that only the very intelligent could believe in them. My position is that it's simply the case that the truthers are getting heavily edited propaganda from these conspiracy authors (I.E. Dylan Avery) and they're being prevented from forming a balanced opinion on their own.

You are obviously an intelligent person who's been here for a while, so I suspect you can come up with your own examples of this.

Yeah, I can think of examples of people spreading misinformation, on both sides of the debate. I don't think that prevents anyone from forming a balanced opinion on their own, but it does muddy the waters at the very least.

And if we're getting our information from sources we assume are not propaganda, we may want to keep in mind another quote from Mr. Orwell:

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

I think everyone will say they have a chip on their shoulder against moneyed powers. Its just that everyone has a dfferent opinion on what a "moneyed power" is. To me, it's the inhuman practices of billion dollar mortgage companies who care more about their balance sheet and their stock holders than the people they're destroying. Others' think it's the "secret Jewish World order", and I've even seen people think it's "anyone who has more money than they do".

This is irrelevent to the discussion at hand, though.

I'm with you on the mortgage companies. I also do believe strongly in the idea that secretive groups of people have spent generations consolidating wealth and power. I don't know who they are (probably not Secret Jewish World Order), what they want, or what they're capable of, but I'm pretty sure they're out there affecting the course of history. It makes sense given what I know of human nature, it's supported by evidence, and in my mind it's completely relevant to the discussion.

According to your own sources, Michael Springman was only commenting on supposed "CIA activity" he witnessed entirely back in 1987-1989, and he says himself this was to funnel anti-Soviet fighters into the US to train to fight in the Afghan war, which I cannot discount. However it seems to me this whole "suspicious CIA connection" bit is rather contrived, particularly when it's a given that *every* US Consulate in the world handles clandestine CIA business, not just the one in Jeddah, but the US consulate in Jedda is necessarily the one where Saudi nationals applying for a student visa would need to go.

Link to the US Consulate in Jeddah web site

Do you see what I mean about "heavily edited propaganda"?

I'm actually not sure what you mean by heavily edited propaganda here, but I think you raise a fair point. I still see a long-term, mostly covert relationship between western military, political and intelligence organizations and fundamental Islamic fighters who formed the mujahideen and later al Qaeda. And I'm not getting that from conspiracy propagandists; I'm getting it from USA Today and the Wall Street Journal and so on (and yes, I see the irony of my Orwell quote above).

As you've acknowledged above, the CIA seems to have played a significant role in training Afghan fighters, which gives context to the whole "suspicious CIA connection" bit. I'm not saying it's proof that the 9/11 hijackers took orders from the CIA or anything like that, but it doesn't do much to eliminate that possibility either.

Originally posted by magicrat
Yes and yes. I completely agree. I expect to argue with you in the future about what violates the laws of physics and what doesn't, but that's definitely a good place of agreement to start from.

Very good. The reason why I bring this up is that controlled demolitions necessarily need to follow a set pattern of rules that conform to the laws of physics. The most obvious one is that critical support columns in a building are destroyed in such a way that the remaining support columns are unable to support the transfer of weight, all happening instantaneously. The ones setting up the controlled demolitions don't simply guess- they specifically know which ones need to be cut and in what order. Gravity takes care of the rest.

Would you therefore agree that controlled demolitions would need to be placed at specific support columns in a building, rather than just any random location? Regardless of the unlimited resources of any black ops operation, they cannot simply plant a bomb in the trash can in an outside parking lot and magically assume it will cause the collapse of the building because physics apply to them just as it applies to the rest of us, correct?

And if we're getting our information from sources we assume are not propaganda, we may want to keep in mind another quote from Mr. Orwell:

"Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper."

Very good. This is a point that I wish to bring up later.

I'm with you on the mortgage companies. I also do believe strongly in the idea that secretive groups of people have spent generations consolidating wealth and power. I don't know who they are (probably not Secret Jewish World Order), what they want, or what they're capable of, but I'm pretty sure they're out there affecting the course of history. It makes sense given what I know of human nature, it's supported by evidence, and in my mind it's completely relevant to the discussion.

All right then, since you believe in such a group, you must be seeing some sort of cause and effect pattern of behavior that implies intelligent design. Someone does something, and as a result, they receive some form of reward for their actions, and the reward is expected to outweigh the cost of the action. What reward is there from the Afghaninstan invasion that would compensate the monstrous overhead required in staging the 9/11 terrorist attack? Beyond simply the manpower involved, I'd have to believe even the price tag would be astronomical.

As you've acknowledged above, the CIA seems to have played a significant role in training Afghan fighters, which gives context to the whole "suspicious CIA connection" bit. I'm not saying it's proof that the 9/11 hijackers took orders from the CIA or anything like that, but it doesn't do much to eliminate that possibility either.

For a scenario to be proven, one must also show that the alternative scenarios are implausible. The hijackers were Saudi citizens, and as there are only a limited number of reasons for why a visa would be issued (I.E. sponsorship of an employer), the easiest one to obtain would be for educational purposes. Can you point out any other way these Saudis could have obtained their educational visas to the US, other than through the US consulate in Jeddah?

Has anyone seen 9/11 The Conspiracy Road Trip? I was wondering what people thought about that documentary?

"five non-believers of the official story journey across the east coast of the USA in search of the truth. On the way we meet “experts” and victims of the attacks, guided by “comedian” Andrew Maxwell who believes the 9/11 commission report was the be all and end all of the 9/11 story."

It's an interesting documentary but I still believe there's a 9/11 conspiracy!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by magicrat
Yes and yes. I completely agree. I expect to argue with you in the future about what violates the laws of physics and what doesn't, but that's definitely a good place of agreement to start from.

Very good. The reason why I bring this up is that controlled demolitions necessarily need to follow a set pattern of rules that conform to the laws of physics. The most obvious one is that critical support columns in a building are destroyed in such a way that the remaining support columns are unable to support the transfer of weight, all happening instantaneously. The ones setting up the controlled demolitions don't simply guess- they specifically know which ones need to be cut and in what order. Gravity takes care of the rest.

That is true in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But in a NORMAL controlled demolition 4 ton girders are not hurled 600 feet from the structure being destroyed. In a NORMAL controlled demolition a MINIMUM of explosives would be used. Lots of concrete does not get pulverised into dust in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But CONTROLLED means that what happens is determined by the people exercising that CONTROL. NORMAL controlled demolitions don't leave lots of molten metal that takes months to cool off. So if abnormal things happen that does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

That is true in a NORMAL controlled demolition.
But in a NORMAL controlled demolition 4 ton girders are not hurled 600 feet from the structure being destroyed. In a NORMAL controlled demolition a MINIMUM of explosives would be used. Lots of concrete does not get pulverised into dust in a NORMAL controlled demolition.
But CONTROLLED means that what happens is determined by the people exercising that CONTROL. NORMAL controlled demolitions don't leave lots of molten metal that takes months to cool off. So if abnormal things happen that does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED.

So you agree then that the collapse of the towers was not a result of controlled demolition which, of course, leads you to the only other observed phenom that day as the cause - the impact damage and resultant fires from the plane crashes - glad to see you're finally coming around to the rational side of the fence!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is true in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But in a NORMAL controlled demolition 4 ton girders are not hurled 600 feet from the structure being destroyed. In a NORMAL controlled demolition a MINIMUM of explosives would be used. Lots of concrete does not get pulverised into dust in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But CONTROLLED means that what happens is determined by the people exercising that CONTROL. NORMAL controlled demolitions don't leave lots of molten metal that takes months to cool off. So if abnormal things happen that does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED.

psik

You are on very dangerous ground here. First, in your insistance that it was controlled demolitions, you've suspended the rules of disbelief that says it's impossible for anyone to plant secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building without any of the occupants noticing, which I'm letting slide for now to get the discussion moving along. NOW, you're reinventing your own rules for what passes as a controlled demolition by including features that never actually happen during a controlled demolition (I.E. wreckage being thrown hundreds of feet in every direction and concrete being pulverized).

It strikes me that you're attempting to have your cake (I.E. no steel building in history has ever collapsed from fire) and eat it too (I.E. just because no controlled demolitions job in history ever caused wreckage to fly hundreds of feet in every direction it doesn't mean it couldn't happen) here, and you're simply adding and subtracting your justification for controlled demolitions as you go along. Isn't that being rather contrived?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is true in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But in a NORMAL controlled demolition 4 ton girders are not hurled 600 feet from the structure being destroyed. In a NORMAL controlled demolition a MINIMUM of explosives would be used. Lots of concrete does not get pulverised into dust in a NORMAL controlled demolition.

But CONTROLLED means that what happens is determined by the people exercising that CONTROL. NORMAL controlled demolitions don't leave lots of molten metal that takes months to cool off. So if abnormal things happen that does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED.

psik

You are on very dangerous ground here. First, in your insistance that it was controlled demolitions, you've suspended the rules of disbelief that says it's impossible for anyone to plant secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building without any of the occupants noticing, which I'm letting slide for now to get the discussion moving along. NOW, you're reinventing your own rules for what passes as a controlled demolition by including features that never actually happen during a controlled demolition (I.E. wreckage being thrown hundreds of feet in every direction and concrete being pulverized).

It strikes me that you're attempting to have your cake (I.E. no steel building in history has ever collapsed from fire) and eat it too (I.E. just because no controlled demolitions job in history ever caused wreckage to fly hundreds of feet in every direction it doesn't mean it couldn't happen) here, and you're simply adding and subtracting your justification for controlled demolitions as you go along. Isn't that being rather contrived?

What verbal bull#.

What does CONTROLLED mean?

When you see cars moving in a movie aren't they controlled. If you see a car crash into a tree in a movie, even though they make it look like an accident for the sake of the story, isn't it really controlled to create the story in the movie?

Just because what happened to the twin towers does not look like a NORMAL controlled demolition does not mean it was not controlled. And if ten times as much as the NORMAL amount of explosive was used then the care of installation would not need to be that critical and that would explain why so much material was hurled so far.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You know for someone who claims to be a fountain of wisdom with regards to physics, you seem terribly confused by the idea of things falling out and away from the point of origin.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Just because what happened to the twin towers does not look like a NORMAL controlled demolition does not mean it was not controlled.

Which brings about you proving it was CD. Which has never been done in 10 years.

And if ten times as much as the NORMAL amount of explosive was used then the care of installation would not need to be that critical and that would explain why so much material was hurled so far.

But if you were trying to hide CD why would you think using 10 times the normal amount of explosives could remain a secret?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

What verbal bull#.

What does CONTROLLED mean?

When you see cars moving in a movie aren't they controlled. If you see a car crash into a tree in a movie, even though they make it look like an accident for the sake of the story, isn't it really controlled to create the story in the movie?

Your example doesn't fit your position. You aren't claiming there were controlled demolitions as much as you're claiming there were *hidden* controlled demolitions, as in none of the custodians, engineers, tenents, security etc noticed anything out of the ordinary, nor were there any obvious signs of demolitions like synchronized flashes. To make your example truly applicable the driver would need to crash into some other mysterious object and then someone would have planted a tree in front of the car and all the eyewitnesses without any of the eyewitnesses noticing.

Before you protest, you should know that if you exchange "tree" with "light post", this is literally what the "no planes hit the Pentagon" theorists are claiming with that smashed up taxi.

Just because what happened to the twin towers does not look like a NORMAL controlled demolition does not mean it was not controlled. And if ten times as much as the NORMAL amount of explosive was used then the care of installation would not need to be that critical and that would explain why so much material was hurled so far.

...which leads to the proverbial "hush-a-boom explosives" that others here have coined. If "ten times the amount of explosives" were used then there wouldn't be any doubt in the least that explosives were used. There'd have been bright flashes all up and down the structure and the whole thing would have gone off like a stick of dynamite, especially with the rapid rate of collapse that occurred. Plus, with these hundreds of 55 gallon drums of nitroglycerin placed all over the place as you're implying they couldn't have *not* been discovered by the occupants.

This is why I was mentioning that whatever happened, it necessarily needed to comply with the laws of physics, and that includes the physics of the construction of the building. Any supposed black ops demolitions team can't just plant their demolitions in a garbage can out in the hallway and then expect it to behave like controlled demolitions by magic simply on the theory that "the gov't can do anything it wants to do." The gov't can't make two plus two equal five regardless of how well their black ops teams are trained and equipped, don't you agree?

several federal agents gathered in building 7 in an attempt to spread suppressed technology as fast and precisely as they could. Then there that morning threatened the peoples of space... minutes later pilot cockpits underwent hypnosis from undetermined source. The claim that they were in the trade centers was merely a distraction. when the plane hit, they knew they were out matched as far as control of the telecommunications network was concerned. So they burnt that bitch to the ground, then plan b. then the pentagon sent a missile into the accounting office in the pentagon, I ordered that, the agents then apologized and promised to listen to the overlords and the fourth plane was no longer use full, so the overlords crashed it. 9 11.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

 

What verbal bull#.

What does CONTROLLED mean?

When you see cars moving in a movie aren't they controlled. If you see a car crash into a tree in a movie, even though they make it look like an accident for the sake of the story, isn't it really controlled to create the story in the movie?

Your example doesn't fit your position. You aren't claiming there were controlled demolitions as much as you're claiming there were *hidden* controlled demolitions, as in none of the custodians, engineers, tenents, security etc noticed anything out of the ordinary, nor were there any obvious signs of demolitions like synchronized flashes. To make your example truly applicable the driver would need to crash into some other mysterious object and then someone would have planted a tree in front of the car and all the eyewitnesses without any of the eyewitnesses noticing.

Tree or light post is irrelevant. When you watch a movie do you doubt that all of the cars in the movie are doing what the creators want them to whether it is driving normally or crashing or going off a cliff.

My point is the word CONTROLLED, not the other irrelevant directions you always go into.

I say airliners could not destroy the towers. Since the towers were destroyed something else had to do it.

To come down that fast something had to eliminate the supports holding the building up. My personal guess would be that there was space among the core columns that could be accessed by punching a hole into the core on an unrented floor high up in the building and then pack lots of explosives into the core. That would be why the videos show material hurled outward on all sides sequentially down the building.

But I really don't CARE.

If airliners did it then explain the physics in detail, including the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers.

This concept that if no one can explain how it was done then it must have been the airplanes is utterly ridiculous. The physics profession has mortally embarrassed itself by not demanding that data in 2002.

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Very good. The reason why I bring this up is that controlled demolitions necessarily need to follow a set pattern of rules that conform to the laws of physics. The most obvious one is that critical support columns in a building are destroyed in such a way that the remaining support columns are unable to support the transfer of weight, all happening instantaneously. The ones setting up the controlled demolitions don't simply guess- they specifically know which ones need to be cut and in what order. Gravity takes care of the rest.

Would you therefore agree that controlled demolitions would need to be placed at specific support columns in a building, rather than just any random location? Regardless of the unlimited resources of any black ops operation, they cannot simply plant a bomb in the trash can in an outside parking lot and magically assume it will cause the collapse of the building because physics apply to them just as it applies to the rest of us, correct?

I agree that I'm not aware of a controlled demolition technique that doesn't fit your description, and that planting a bomb in a garbage can won't bring down a building. I don't know much about controlled demolition techniques, so I assume there are possibilities I'm not aware of, but I'm willing to agree with your premise in general.

A super secret army of covert agents planting explosives in three buildings under the noses of oblivious workers and visitors might be logistically inconceivable, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics. I don't know for sure whether or not three buildings collapsing the way they did due to fire damage violates the laws of physics, but I think you've just articulated a pretty solid argument against the inherent logic of it.

Very good. This is a point that I wish to bring up later.

I'm really curious about this....

All right then, since you believe in such a group, you must be seeing some sort of cause and effect pattern of behavior that implies intelligent design. Someone does something, and as a result, they receive some form of reward for their actions, and the reward is expected to outweigh the cost of the action. What reward is there from the Afghaninstan invasion that would compensate the monstrous overhead required in staging the 9/11 terrorist attack? Beyond simply the manpower involved, I'd have to believe even the price tag would be astronomical.

I can only guess, but I understand that a plausible theory needs to involve a motive, so I have thought through several possible motives, depending on who this group actually is and how strong my tinfoil hat is any given day. Oil, guns, power, money, opium ... I could see any of these and more being a probable reward that justifies the cost. I have a harder time seeing what Al Qaeda gained.

For a scenario to be proven, one must also show that the alternative scenarios are implausible. The hijackers were Saudi citizens, and as there are only a limited number of reasons for why a visa would be issued (I.E. sponsorship of an employer), the easiest one to obtain would be for educational purposes. Can you point out any other way these Saudis could have obtained their educational visas to the US, other than through the US consulate in Jeddah?

Fair question. There are plenty of plausible scenarios, so none can be considered proven.

reply to post by dedicated
Thanks for the recommendation. Never heard of it, just googled it and it looks interesting. I'll be watching it soon.