Was the government a co-conspirator?

If it was radical Muslims ...you think they would have had enough sense to know, that an attack would benefit the empire...so they would be essentially doing them a favor, by attacking...do we not all agree on that?

then we have this damning evidence...

September 11, 2001 (C): Data recovery experts later looking at 32 hard drives salvaged from the 9/11 attacks discover a surge in credit card transactions from the WTC in the hours before and during the attacks. Unusually large sums of money were rushed through computers even as the disaster unfolded. Investigators say, "There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million. They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed." [Reuters, 12/18/01, CNN, 12/20/01]

(6:45 A.M.) Approximately two hours prior to the first attack, two workers in Israel at the instant messaging company Odigo receive messages warning of the WTC attack. This Israeli owned company has its headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The two employees claim not to know who sent the warnings. [Washington Post, 9/28/01, Ha'aretz, 9/26/01]

(8:46 A.M.) Two F-15 fighters are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts to find Flight 11, approximately 190 miles from the known location of the plane and 188 miles from New York City. Fighters in nearer bases are not scrambled. This is 6-8 minutes after NORAD has been told the plane was hijacked, approximately 26 minutes after losing contact with the plane. [8:39, Channel 4 News, 9/13/01, 8:46, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:44, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:44, Washington Post, 9/15/01]


8:46 A.M. Flight 11 slams into the north tower, 1 World Trade Center. Investigators believe it still had about 10,000 gallons of fuel and was traveling 470 mph. [New York Times, 9/11/02] Approximately 2662 people are killed on the ground between this crash and the crash of Flight 175. [AP, 8/19/02, 8:45, CNN, 9/12/01, 8:45, New York Times, 9/12/01, 8:46 (based on seismic data), New York Times, 9/12/01, 8:46, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:46, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:46, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:46, AP, 8/19/02, 8:46, USA Today, 9/3/02, 8:46, Newsday, 9/10/02, 8:47:00, Guardian, 10/17/01, 8:48, MSNBC, 9/22/01, 8:46:26, New York Times, 9/11/02, 8:46:26, seismic records]

8:46 – 9:00 A.M. Bush's motorcade left for the school at 8:30. As it was arriving at the school, pagers and cell phones alerted White House aides that a plane had hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Bush remembers senior adviser Karl Rove bringing him the news, saying it appeared to be an accident involving a small, twin-engine plane. [Washington Post, 1/27/02] Bush: "I can remember noticing the press pool and the press corps beginning to get the calls and seeing the look on their face." [CBS, 9/11/02]

9:03 A.M. Flight 175, hits the south tower, 2 World Trade Center. [AP, 8/19/02] F-15 fighter jets from Otis Air National Guard Base are still 71 miles or eight minutes away.

(After 9:03 A.M.) A few minutes after 9:03, the Secret Service calls Andrews Air Force Base, located 10 miles from Washington. They are notified to get F-16's armed and ready to fly. Missiles are still being loaded onto the F-16's when the Pentagon is hit over half an hour later. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02] The problem with this account is that prior to 9/11, The District of Columbia Air National Guard (located at Andrews) had a publicly stated mission "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness." Shortly after 9/11 this mission statement on its website is changed, so it merely has a "vision" to "provide peacetime command and control and administrative mission oversight to support customers and DCANG units in achieving the highest levels of readiness." [DCANG Home Page (before and after the change)]



(After 9:03 A.M.) Minutes after the second WTC crash at 9:03, military base commanders from all over the US are calling NORAD and volunteering to scramble planes. The commander at Syracuse, New York says he can get a plane in the air armed with cannon in ten minutes. Yet none of these planes are put in the air until after the last hijacked plane crashes over an hour later. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02

9:09 A.M. Supposedly, NORAD orders F-16's at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, on battle stations alert. Yet the order to scramble won't come till 9:27 or so, and they won't take off until 9:30. Around this time, the FAA command center reports 11 aircraft either not in communication with FAA facilities, or flying unexpected routes. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] So why aren't planes scrambled immediately, at 9:09 or even before, to find out what's going on?

(9:29 A.M.) Bush leaves the elementary school classroom, and as he leaves, makes a few brief comments to reporters, calling the crashes "an apparent terrorist attack on our country." The talk occurs at exactly the time and place his publicly announced advance schedule planned they would - making Bush a possible terrorist target.

September 11, 2001 (F): It is later revealed that only hours after the 9/11 attacks, a US "shadow government" is formed. Initially deployed "on the fly," executive directives on government continuity in the face of a crisis dating back to the Reagan administration are put into effect. Approximately 100 mid-level officials are moved to underground bunkers and stay there 24 hours a day. Officials rotate in and out on a 90-day cycle. When its existence is revealed, some controversy arises because of the exclusion of any Democrats from it. In fact, top Congressional Democrats had never even heard of it until journalists broke the story. [Washington Post, 3/2/02, CBS, 3/2/02]

September 11-16, 2001: Andrews Air Force Base is 10 miles from Washington, DC, and Langley Air Force Base in 130 miles away. The official story is that there were no fighters at Andrews so none took off from there to intercept the hijacked planes, but it takes a few days for the media to come around to that point of view:
1) A few minutes after the Pentagon was hit, "fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base..." [Denver Post, 9/11/01]
2) "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16's out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base..." [NBC Nightly News, 9/11/01]
3) "Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said. But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..." [San Diego Union Tribune, 9/12/01]
4) "Within minutes of the attack, American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16's from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC." [Telegraph, 9/16/01]
5) "Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it." [USA Today, 9/16/01]
6) "The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed." [USA Today, 9/16/01]
7) "... As part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency." "In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB." [DC Military website]
8) The District of Columbia Air National Guard website is changed shortly after 9/11. Previously its mission was "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness." Afterwards, it was changed to read that the Guard has a "vision" to "provide peacetime command and control and administrative mission oversight to support customers and DCANG units in achieving the highest levels of readiness." [DCANG Home Page (before and after the change)]

Any of this sounds like hogwash to you Vipertech or Dave?

reply to post by earthinhabitant


Yep. That and your understanding is lacking.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

You said this

Naw, we dont say that there wasnt a cover up. We just point out that the cover up, was for much different reasons and did not involve criminal actions by the US Government.

I asked this

Now explain how you know what hasn’t been uncovered

and you answered with this

Umm...common sense and history? A group of us were talking on the evening of 9/11/01 (we were all members of the same unit and were making all sorts of phone calls, trying to find out if friends of ours at the Pentagon had been accounted for) and we all knew that in the end, it would be discovered that we had all the info we needed to put togething a fairly accurate picture of what was going to happen. The only problem was, the information was scattered on a few dozen desks in a few dozen different agencies, none of which could legally share the information with other agencies. Because that is ALWAYS how it happens.

What part of the question is that supposed to be the answer to?


Lets try this again

First take your Ritalin, then read the question until you understand what it is... no time limit.

And then answer my question...


You can do it ! You can do it !

Go vipertech0596 !

P.S.

I maintain F-16s for the US Air Force.

That's cool, now answer the question.

Here is the cheer pepper rally leading slogan response expected:

"9/11 is just too big of a mystery to ever understand it, ...
....we will never know...
...so just stop trying to figure it all out,
...you are wasting your time and energy"

Will try and count how many times, notice people saying something that sounds like they are saying.... have heard quiet a bit, now from various folks at ATS.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by earthinhabitant

 

Yep. That and your understanding is lacking.

Well enlighten us on what you would care us to understand and how to think and what...anything in particular you disagreeing with, or just all of it in general, eyes, ears and areas closed on the matter and your mind is made up and made up is your mind?

Now where were you on that day?

reply to post by vipertech0596


since it seems you are disagreeing with, all things considered, that facts of they timeline, as suggest we back up a little and try to take it from the top on this...and see if that helps you, as hog washing it might help us all, so you can just either point out what ones you disagree with and why or just say all of it, as I expected..again


these excerpts from this page
www.wanttoknow.info...


1982-1991: Afghan opium production skyrockets from 250 tons in 1982 to 2,000 tons in 1991, coinciding with CIA support and funding of the mujaheddin. [Star Tribune, 9/30/01]

1984: Bin Laden moves to Peshawar, a Pakistani town bordering Afghanistan, and is running a front organization for the mujaheddin known as MAK, which funnels money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war. [New Yorker, 1/24/00] "MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation." [MSNBC, 8/24/98] He becomes closely tied to the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and greatly strengthens Hekmatyar's opium smuggling operations. [Le Monde, 9/14/01] Hekmatyar had ties with bin Laden, the CIA and drug running, and has also been called "an ISI stooge and creation" by the Wall Street Journal. [Atlantic, 5/96, Asia Times, 11/15/01]

Mid-1980's: The ISI starts a special cell of agents who use profits from heroin production for covert actions "at the insistence of the CIA." This cell promotes the cultivation of opium and extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under mujaheddin control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas, in order to turn the Soviet troops into heroin addicts. After the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the ISI's heroin cell started using its network of refineries and smugglers for smuggling heroin to Western countries and using the money as a supplement to its legitimate economy. [Financial Times, Asian edition, 8/10/01] The ISI grows so powerful on this money, that Time magazine later states, "Even by the shadowy standards of spy agencies, the ISI is notorious. It is commonly branded 'a state within the state,' or Pakistan's 'invisible government.'" [Time, 5/6/02]

March 1985: The US decides to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The CIA, British MI6 and the ISI agree to launch guerrilla attacks from Afghanistan into then Soviet-controlled Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, attacking military installations, factories and storage depots within Soviet territory until the end of the war. The CIA also begins supporting the ISI in recruiting radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan mujaheddin. The CIA gives subversive literature and Korans to the ISI, who carry them into the Soviet Union. Eventually, around 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries will fight with the Afghan mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more will study in the hundreds of new radical Islamic schools funded by the ISI and CIA in Pakistan. [Washington Post, 7/19/92, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/01, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 9/23/01, The Hindu, 9/27/01, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Ahmed Rashid, 3/01] In the late 1980's, Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujaheddin network has grown too strong, tells President George Bush Sr., "You are creating a Frankenstein." But the warning goes unheeded. [Newsweek, 10/1/01]

next the 90's so vipertech, just give us the go ahead on move along, so A) is there anything you do agree with in the above, or B) NOne of the above C) Only part of it D) I am under a gag order and cannot comment further E) If I answer yes, it will implicate me and others whom I am associated with and work with...so on grounds of self incrimination, decline to comment on these and other matters of national security or foolish childish conspiracy theorist and you all should stop trying to figure it out, before someone gets hurt...or some other no comment choice..

Originally posted by maxella1

Aww..... that’s so cute, they're best friends that’s why they are covering up. No US complicity at all just a couple of bff's.

You guys crack me up.

edit on 10-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Hmm. You see the difference between your view and mine is that mine has evidence to support it, while yours relies on wild speculation. And a poorly shopped cartoon.

I imagine that you are also unaware of the size of the Saudi royal family, which is why you're unable to think of this as a discussion between anything more than about five people. Probably best to do some wider reading before cracking up too much.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Aww..... that’s so cute, they're best friends that’s why they are covering up. No US complicity at all just a couple of bff's.

You guys crack me up.

edit on 10-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Hmm. You see the difference between your view and mine is that mine has evidence to support it, while yours relies on wild speculation. And a poorly shopped cartoon.

I imagine that you are also unaware of the size of the Saudi royal family, which is why you're unable to think of this as a discussion between anything more than about five people. Probably best to do some wider reading before cracking up too much.

There's direct evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 hijackers...I think the problem is how the U.S. is covering this up (it is a confirmed cover up, no speculation). It's not about questioning who in the Royal family is responsible, it's about questioning the US Gov't and how they're false evidence pointed all fingers to Iraq.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


so, what is your take on building 7 Dave...the official story? How do you explain that and the way the other 2 fell down...was that Muhammad's Wrath?

Originally posted by Myendica
This is sad. People actually on here trying to convince others that we had to protect the saudi king and princes.. Thus why we covered it up.. Guys.. Wrong = wrong. Theres no sugar coating it. A cover up is a cover up. And complicit, is allowing or covering up and = wrong. End of discussion. The next conversation is, they gets these guys in court, and put it on record. The government covering up anything, or protecting anyone, besides protecting and serving its citizens, after 9/11, should be considered a breach in contract and the government is no longer fit to have authority. They failed, they covered, they hid, they lied.. Thats war against its citizens. So either we bring em to court, or.. .. .. 1776 = 2012

I don't think anyone is saying that protecting the Saudis was the right thing to do. Just that it makes sense from the point of view of realpolitik and doesn't necessarily suggest a wider cover up.

As an analogy I can see why the US spent so long trying to kill Castro. I still think it was stupid and wrong, but I understand their thinking.

reply to post by homervb

House of Bush, House of Saud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
House of Bush, House of Saud cover

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties is a 2004 book by Craig Unger that explores the relationship between the Saudi Royal Family and the Bush extended political family. Unger asserts that the groundwork for today's terrorist movements and the modern wars that have sprung up about them was unintentionally laid more than 30 years ago with a series of business deals between the ruling Saudis and the powerful Bush family. The Saudis received investments and military protection in exchange for cooperation on lucrative oil deals. The author claims that the result has been a shady alliance between "the world's two most powerful dynasties." Unger writes, "Never before has an American president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our country's mortal enemies."

Controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore's 2004 picture Fahrenheit 9/11 draws heavily on arguments made in Unger's book.

www.hermes-press.com...
Jihad

The Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan had the blessings of the Saudi royal family and of The Big Three--the bin Laden family, the al Ahmoudi family, and the Mahfouz family--the richest clans in that medieval kingdom. (Khalid bin Mahfouz is bin Laden's brother-in-law, according to the C.I.A.). The desert oligarchs profited from world-wide investments as well as sleazy banking schemes such as the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, has conducted all his American affairs through James Bath, a Houston crony of the Bush family. Bath's former business partner Bill White testified in court that Bath had been a liaison for the C.I.A. In 1979 Bath invested $50,000 in Arbusto, George W. Bush's first business venture. Rumor had it that Bath was acting as Salem bin Laden's representative. "In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests." (4)

In February 1995, when he was appointed chief of the F.B.I.'s counter-terrorism section in Washington, John O'Neill immediately assembled and coordinated a team to capture Ramzi Yousef, who was en route from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Yousef was strongly suspected of planning and directing the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

O'Neill resigned from the F.B.I. in July 2001 and signed on as security chief for the World Trade Center in September. He died in the WTC attack on September 11, 2001.

Although Brisard's interpretation of events has been disputed, the documentation of Forbidden Truth is impeccable. Clearly, the finances and fortunes of the Saudi oligarchs and the Bush family have been intertwined for many years, and oil has been the lubricant of choice, even non-existent oil.

"The fraud was rather simple. Richard Secord arranged through then Vice President George Bush Sr.'s old friend, Ghaith Pharaon, the then retired head of Saudi intelligence, for Gulf Oil and Drilling to purchase from the Saudi government oil and gas leases in the Gulf which were effectively worthless."

The leases would be embellished to appear extremely valuable and then used as loan collateral. Great American Bank and Trust of West Palm Beach subsequently failed under the weight of unpaid Iran-Contra loans.

"Also, in the case of Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, there was some moderately large international lending to that company. As you would suspect, it was principally out of the old George Bush friendly banks--Credit Lyonnais and Banque Paribas, which, combined lent $60 million dollars to Gulf Oil Drilling Supply, which, of course, was defaulted on later." (9)

Springmann observed that 15 of the 19 people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA-dominated consulate in Jeddah. As a special favor to residents of Saudi Arabia (including non-Saudi citizens), applicants for non-immigrant visas can apply at private travel agencies and receive their visa through the mail. During the months following the 9-11 attack, 102 applicants received their visas by mail, 2 more were interviewed, and none were rejected.

Originally posted by homervb

There's direct evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 hijackers...I think the problem is how the U.S. is covering this up (it is a confirmed cover up, no speculation). It's not about questioning who in the Royal family is responsible, it's about questioning the US Gov't and how they're false evidence pointed all fingers to Iraq.

I am aware of the direct link, as you'll see from the post Maxella is responding to. My point was that my take on this - that it is a nefarious attempt to placate an ally perceived as 'useful' - has some evidence behind it. His - that it points to a wider conspiracy - has none.

He's not necessarily wrong. It's just that there's nothing except innuendo and supposition to say that he's right.

The Saudi Royal Family has about 7000 members. It is entirely plausible that some of them knew about or were even involved in 9/11. The mistake is to think that this would have required US involvement. Indeed it doesn't bear the briefest scrutiny. Why on earth would the US want a higher oil price for Saudi output?

One final point - I absolutely agree re Iraq and false evidence. Which is why I get so annoyed by people trying to find missiles at the Pentagon and so on. They're missing the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. And why? Because they enjoy feeling simultaneously impotent and superior.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

....www.hermes-press.com...

"In July 2001, Bush personally contacted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to 'clarify' his son's Middle East policies. Also during the summer of 2001, Bush forwarded his son a North Korea policy plan penned by 'Asia expert' and former ambassador to Korea, Donald Gregg. Gregg is a 31-year CIA veteran and the elder Bush's former national security adviser whose expertise involved participation in the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program (death squads), Air America heroin smuggling, 'pacification' efforts in El Salvador and Guatemala, the 'October Surprise,' and the Iran-Contra operation (for which Gregg received a Bush pardon in 1992)."

Bush Senior struck it rich in oil and in the defense industry. Mahfouz (yes, that Mahfouz), Prince Bandar and Prince Sultan (Bandar's father) were also heavily invested in the defense industry through their holdings in the Carlyle Group, where Bush Senior served on the board of directors. Founded in 1987 as a private investment group with strong connections to the Republican Party establishment, Carlyle increased its original investment of $130 million to $900 million when it went public in 2001.

"In recent years, Carlyle has been successful both at raising and making money. It has raised $14 billion in the last five years or so, and its annual rate of return has been 36 percent. Its 550 investors consist of institutions and wealthy individuals from around the world including, until shortly after September 2001, members of the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia. The family--which has publicly disavowed links with Osama bin Laden--had been an investor since 1995."


Some of the Washington politicians who found the Saudi connection lucrative include Spiro Agnew, Frank Carlucci, Jimmy Carter, Clark Clifford, John Connally, James Baker, George H. W. Bush, William Simon and Caspar Weinberger.
Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa professed their ignorance of the whole affair.

Why on earth would the US want a higher oil price for Saudi output? reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Is that all you are concerned about?
Is it even relevant?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Aww..... that’s so cute, they're best friends that’s why they are covering up. No US complicity at all just a couple of bff's.

You guys crack me up.

edit on 10-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Hmm. You see the difference between your view and mine is that mine has evidence to support it, while yours relies on wild speculation. And a poorly shopped cartoon.

I imagine that you are also unaware of the size of the Saudi royal family, which is why you're unable to think of this as a discussion between anything more than about five people. Probably best to do some wider reading before cracking up too much.

What cracks me up is that you don't even realize how incredibly silly your comment was.

Lets see the evidence you are talking about. But first look at this.

Did the Saudis buy a president?

It is worth pointing out that in terms of charitable donations, the House of Saud has been truly bipartisan and has contributed to every presidential library over the last 30 years. Many members of the House of Saud have directed their largesse to charities important to powerful Americans, including a $23 million donation to the University of Arkansas soon after Bill Clinton became president. The donations below represent those from the House of Saud to charities of personal importance to the Bush family: 1989: King Fahd gave $1 million to Barbara Bush’s campaign against illiteracy. 1997: Prince Bandar gave $1 million to the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas. 2002: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave $500,000 to Andover to fund a George Herbert Walker Bush scholarship. 2003: Prince Bandar gave a $1 million oil painting of an American Buffalo hunt to President Bush for use in his presidential library after he leaves the White House.

CONSPIRACY OR COINCIDENCE?

Is it a conspiracy or a coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia. There are many business and connections between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia. It begins in the 1970's in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family's two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil. The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers. Below is a timeline that details the relationship between the Bin Laden and Bush families that culminates in the tragic events of September 11th.

Plus they like to hold hands.

Probably best to do some wider reading before cracking up too much.

Indeed.

reply to post by earthinhabitant


But you see that's my point. Even if all of that is true it doesn't actually evidence any involvement in 9/11. You have to do the crucial faith-based leap to get there. You guys enjoy doing that. I don't.

Originally posted by maxella1


What cracks me up is that you don't even realize how incredibly silly your comment was.

Lets see the evidence you are talking about. But first look at this.

Did the Saudis buy a president?

It is worth pointing out that in terms of charitable donations, the House of Saud has been truly bipartisan and has contributed to every presidential library over the last 30 years. Many members of the House of Saud have directed their largesse to charities important to powerful Americans, including a $23 million donation to the University of Arkansas soon after Bill Clinton became president. The donations below represent those from the House of Saud to charities of personal importance to the Bush family: 1989: King Fahd gave $1 million to Barbara Bush’s campaign against illiteracy. 1997: Prince Bandar gave $1 million to the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station, Texas. 2002: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave $500,000 to Andover to fund a George Herbert Walker Bush scholarship. 2003: Prince Bandar gave a $1 million oil painting of an American Buffalo hunt to President Bush for use in his presidential library after he leaves the White House.

CONSPIRACY OR COINCIDENCE?

Is it a conspiracy or a coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia. There are many business and connections between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia. It begins in the 1970's in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family's two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil. The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers. Below is a timeline that details the relationship between the Bin Laden and Bush families that culminates in the tragic events of September 11th.

Plus they like to hold hands.

Probably best to do some wider reading before cracking up too much.

Indeed.

edit on 14-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Okay. Here's exactly where you're going wrong. I'll do this very slowly.

What you've posted above evidences a series of links between Saudi Arabia and and the Bush family, amongst others. It does not evidence involvement in 9/11 by either party. For some reason you think it does. You are wrong. In order to imagine that it does, you have to make a leap of faith that is not contained in the extracts you use above.

Imagine, for example, me trying to suggest you killed a guy because your dad met his uncle and your brother invested in his golf course. You might be pretty annoyed if you went down on that evidence alone.

You also seem uncritical of your evidence. The Carlyle Group meeting had over 500 people at it. But your source characterises it as a "business meeting" between Bush Sr and Bin Laden's brother. There is no evidence that they actually spoke to each other. Bin Laden also had something like 50 siblings.

The fact that you take this source so uncritically answers the question of why you are so easily led with regard to conspiracy theories, I guess.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I agree with most of what you say, up to the point of US complicity. They are covering up Saudi involvement because SA is their best friend in the region other than Israel. Have a look at this

www.independent.co.uk...

There's a lot of realpolitik at work here. Some of it stinks. But I'm not sure any of it points to US govt involvement in 9/11.

Do you really believe that the cover up of the possible Saudi involvement by the government has nothing to do with the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi, the fact that Saudis have a long history of doing business with members of our government, and that members of the Saudi royal family was directly or Indirectly financing the terrorists?

And it shouldn’t be investigated to rule out the involvement of members of our government?

Our government official were getting a lot on money from the Saudis, but there is no chance that they could have been directly or indirectly involved with the Saudi terrorists?