9/11: "Incontrovertible evidence" that the Saudi Government helped the hijackers

page: 1
75
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+44 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
*** Disclaimer*** I had no idea the New York Post was a tabloid newspaper. Although it does report today's headlines, there seems to be a lot of added spin. This story cannot be confirmed for accuracy at this time, so take with an ocean of salt. ***




Last week I made a THREAD discussing a new House resolution calling for the declassification of 28 pages of a report titled:

"Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001."

...which includes information concerning certain foreign governments' involvment in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


Well, the New York Post just did a story of their own on the subject with some new information:


A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”



Apparently, some information has been leaked from the redacted section, based on CIA and FBI documents:

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
This is very damning information, if true.

Another interesting part of the whole story:

Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.


Most 9/11 researchers, and those who pay attention to political events, know about the Bush family connection to the Saudi's. So, why would W. Bush do this:

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood...


So, as the author of the above story asks: Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? I would say "yes".

This is looking more and more like a joint operation. The Saudis provided the hijackers and supported them, the military industrial complex provided the logistics, and rigged the buildings to fall down. Then it all gets conveniently swept under the rug, classified, and deleted from reports.

It makes you wonder if the 28 pages do get declassified, if the Saudi government will just "take it", or will they start pointing the finger as well?

I don't expect the report, or the 28 pages to be declassified anytime soon. This president has followed in the footsteps of W. Bush, and carried on his "legacy" because the presidents are not in complete control. The military industrial complex is. It's why Kennedy was assassinated. So they could grasp power and hold on to it.

It's also why these presidential candidates make so many wild claims and promises during the campaign, but they can't keep once they take office. The "180" likely isn't because they just made up a bunch of promises they couldn't keep, but because they were told how things were going to be and who is really in charge once the oath of office is taken.

This is definitely a story to keep an eye on.



edit on 15-12-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: added disclaimer



+9 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I don't know if we will ever know all of the details of 9/11 but I am certain that Bush had knowledge of if not a hand in it before and after it happened.

How else would he get a chance to be a war hero like daddy?


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Confusing.

If we are to believe that the MSM is owned by the elite and nothing gets reported without their say-so...

Why would the NYP be reporting this?

Set-up/soft intro to the truth for other reasons?

I for one believe that 9/11 was an act of war from within but never thought to see the MSM supporting even a one line report to the truth.

Unless I'm missing something here?

Peace



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
If a state is involved in aiding and abetting the plan, then the only two conclusion that come to mind are either:

1. It was asked for whether or not officially from people in the US government, but perhaps corporate interests in the region and the aftermath. Or at the very least, knew about it, and asked to let it happen, or on the other side, knew about it and let it happen.

or…

2. It was warning by the Saudi's over differences in foreign policy affecting their region.

The first I can see happening. The second is a bit of a long shot. Which, whether or not the higher ups liked it they would have to protect the Saudis because a war with SA would kind of be the thing to do in such a situation.

Oddly enough either of them seem more plausible than the official line towed.

Maybe it was all done by a handful of people and the one's left in the wake were simply trying to cover it so it couldn't be associated with the actions of a state… But to that I say, better choose more carefully who you have controlling your state.
edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Many things come to light no matter how hard they try to bury it. New people in power, idealists get jobs in the wake of corruption, etc.

It might be that something is going to come of this no matter how hard they try so they will have to let it out under their terms. Mind you, North America has been brainwashed for the last decade or so, which means a good number won't want to hear it at all, and there is still a chance of minimizing it.

When it comes to evidence for war there ought to be something stating no information can remain classified. We are talking about war here, thousands and thousands of deaths.

Exculpatory evidence is required to be presented when convicting a single person, why can a country condemn everyone in another one to suffrage without the same kind of principal used in court?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11

Why would the NYP be reporting this?

 


Also, to be fair its an OpEd from the new york post, not the new york times…

Other headlines are:


How the West was lost by the selfie president



Why is Bruce Jenner getting rid of his Adam’s apple?


Not even sure if people will notice. But it is interesting that a few politicians want the news dropped. (or so we are to believe)
edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Great detective work! May your water-boardings be few, and your eventual future bright!


Do you think the story will actually be allowed to go anywhere? Will we just let it go?

Maybe it wasn't so much an inside plot as many believe than an outside plot (Saudis) with some insiders on the US end?

edit on 15-12-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
If it turns out that there was foreknowledge and collusion by the Saudi and US govts..... can we bomb Riyahd and Washington D C? Shock and awe anyone?
edit on 15-12-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


To the NSA, my post above was rhetorical.
Furthermore, I do not have the logistical capabilities to launch military attacks on countries capitals.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

boncho
reply to post by jude11

Why would the NYP be reporting this?

 


Also, to be fair its an OpEd from the new york post, not the new york times…

Other headlines are:


How the West was lost by the selfie president



Why is Bruce Jenner getting rid of his Adam’s apple?


Not even sure if people will notice. But it is interesting that a few politicians want the news dropped. (or so we are to believe)
edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)


OK,

Makes a little more sense now. Thanks.

I never read or watch the MSM so I have no reference. Seems like the difference is The Globe & Mail vs. The Enquirer. Wait...sorry, same thing again.


Peace



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by butcherguy
 


To the NSA, my post above was rhetorical.
Furthermore, I do not have the logistical capabilities to launch military attacks on countries capitals.


RULE #1 in Conspiracy Theories...

Never apologize.


Peace



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

jude11

butcherguy
reply to post by butcherguy
 


To the NSA, my post above was rhetorical.
Furthermore, I do not have the logistical capabilities to launch military attacks on countries capitals.


RULE #1 in Conspiracy Theories...

Never apologize.


Peace


Rhetorically speaking, every person implicated in this horrid travesty should be hung by the neck until dead.

Wait, remove the rhetorical part please.


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The problem I see lies with the Bush clan itself.

Not only does this point towards that particular family hiding their ties to the Saudis, it also shows how they may have helped keep their link hidden and erased from existence. Just like what Poppy did for the Watergate scandal and JFK murder when he was head of the CIA in the 70's. Coincidence? No such thing.

What is truly amazing is that people still hold on to the lie that Iraq had something to do with that fateful day. If they knew anything remotely close to the truth, there would be public outcry to oust the Bush clan from power and goto war with Saudi Arabia.

But because the Bush clan has much invested in that particular country with Big oil companies and the family ties, nothing will ever come to light. Just redact 7200 words and you are free, apparently.


unfrigginbelievable.






posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

I guess we'll see how transparent he really is.

Maybe it was Iraq? (still holding onto some hope that they didn't lie to us
)

I wonder what will happen to Saudi Arabia?

If I was Iran I would be worried about this coming to light because there is no way in hell that they will attack SA, they need something to take the public eye away from this.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I added a disclaimer to the OP. I had no idea the New York Post was a tabloid newspaper. I'm not from New York, and thought NYC had more than one circulating newspaper.

Therefore, the accuracy of the story in the OP cannot be confirmed or believed at this time.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11

OK,

Makes a little more sense now. Thanks.

I never read or watch the MSM so I have no reference. Seems like the difference is The Globe & Mail vs. The Enquirer. Wait...sorry, same thing again.

Peace

 


It's now getting picked up by various outlets across the world. The real story is the press release from the congressman, found here, the remarks apparently were opinion only and not an official statement, (as that would make him liable for disclosing classified info).

What I find curious is I remember this being posted to the forums the other day. but no sign of it around in MSM. And I believe it was sourced by more than on outlet.

Most of the responses in the thread were "It's the j00s!!!" etc. But the Op Ed piece seems to implicate Saudi. The interesting part, is no matter how deep it goes, it doesn't matter, one thread is all it takes to start pulling apart a wool sweater.

If it starts with Saudi, I have a feeling some will be pushing for it to end there, and others will start finding much more information on it. The more that gets let out however, the more resistance there will be, so maybe a little drip drop here and there ain't so bad.

Anyway, for future reference this is what comes up in a news search as of now…




posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Then was 9/11 also done with knowledge that at some point they would blame the Saudis after conning them in to financing it? Was the goal to replace the Saudi Royal family?

if it's true what about the connections inside the US?
This has to come back on certain people with close ties - I wonder who that might be?
It's not under this shrub!



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Crazy world!

So many of the (supposed) hijackers were Saudis, but did 'Merica go to war against the KSA? NO! It went to war against Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, 'Merica is bound by treaty to defend the KSA.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


SO ... 12 years later ... THIS !?!?!?

12 years ago, Saudi Arabia had us over ... Barrels of Oil ??? ... ( if I haven't entirely lost my memory, we were importing WAY more oil than we could produce in 2001 ).

That MAY have caused some sort of ... Reluctance ??? ... ( if there is a 9/11/2001 to Saudia Arabia connection ).

Beyond all of that ... ( as significant as it is/was ) ...

IF this is suppose to be some sort of distraction from whats currently going on ... I don't think it will exceed the damage that Obamacare is about to cause.

AND

I must agree with what one of the "Specialized" Doctors said in her closing statement last week: "T Minus 20 Days and Counting" ... ( except now, we're about 17 days and counting ).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-
It MIGHT could be called a: ... "World Sized Bucket of Sensory-Overload" ???
-
edit on 15-12-2013 by FarleyWayne because: ... some spelling cleanup



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

_BoneZ_
I added a disclaimer to the OP. I had no idea the New York Post was a tabloid newspaper. I'm not from New York, and thought NYC had more than one circulating newspaper.

Therefore, the accuracy of the story in the OP cannot be confirmed or believed at this time.





The bill being tabled can be found here, so that much is true. Whether or not there is Saudi involvement and it's shocking news being hidden in redactions is the opinion part from the tabloid.

Edit to add, it was your thread OP that I saw the other day. Link Okay, so memory didn't serve correctly. In the previous thread it was claimed that SA also sought for declassification and in this one, the OpEd from the tabloid is implicating them. Interesting.

edit on 15-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
75
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join