Saudi Government Allegedly Funded A ‘Dry Run’ For 9/11

More damning evidence and links exposed due to the 9-11 Lawsuit. The ties to the Saudi Government and related information in the article is quite damning or one hell of a chain of "coincidences". Long article, worth the time to read it and check out the ties back to the Saudi's.

nypost.com...

Fresh evidence submitted in a major 9/11 lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi Arabian government reveals its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, further reinforcing the claim employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers and plotters.

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

a reply to: infolurker

The petro dollar is a powerful tool. It makes presidents hold hands and kiss "kings" lips.

Remember they are allowed to fly when no one else in the US is and even when all the 9/11 hijackers are supposedly Saudi no real questions are asked.

a reply to: seasonal

Remember they are allowed to fly when no one else in the US is and even when all the 9/11 hijackers are supposedly Saudi no real questions are asked.

A big show made of sending them home to protect them, ostensibly from retribution, but really just a show.
because after all, 17 of 21 hijackers were saudi nationals, saudi arabia was the prestaging platform for US invasion of Kuwait, and the Saudis are the largest Arms customer and Proxy war maker for the US in the Middle East.

They are waging unchecked aggressive war in Yemen and aiding and arming Insurgents in Syria.

All added up, points back to the US...

Outstanding I !!!!

I hope this helps clear up the fog about Texas Aggies and Riyadh.

a reply to: intrptr

Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's, 9/11. All are false flags from a tad to definitely a lie. But what are we to expect when we have Presidents (Ford) pardon criminals (Nixon) and absolutely nothing happens. I believe if Nixon would have been jailed, we never would have had Reagan, Bush, Clinton......

We have a 2 class system, one for the 99.99% and yet another the 1% and connected.

a reply to: infolurker

Posted this yesterday in another thread concerning Saudi involvement - not able to create new post here

here is my post

A recent lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabian alleges that the kingdom financed a "dry run" prior to
911 to test feasibility .

nypost.com...

Two Saudi "students" , Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi , employed by the Saudi embassy boarded an
America West Flight (America West 90) from Phoenix to Washington DC in November 1999. The embassy paying for the
tickets . Both of them had ties to Al Qaeda and contact with the 911 hijackers

During the flight from Phoenix the pair alarmed the flight crew with their actions - asking suspicious questions to the flight attendants and on the pretext of going to the bathroom walked from rear cabin through 1st class to the cockpit door.

Their activities so concerned the flight crew that on a stop in Dayton Ohio the FBI removed the pair and subjected them
to intensive interrogation. They were released after FBI turned up nothing to hold them on.

Later the Saudis sued the US government claiming were "racially profiled". The suit was dismissed

Following 911 investigators returned to incident as one of number of probes to test the system.

The America West Flight 90 incident has been know for while

a reply to: infolurker

The supposition is ludicrous and the timing convenient to keep the false conspiracy story alive, especially as the anniversary is almost upon us again. The US government will never officially "find out" what happened on 9/11. And if they do, any real information will be buried and locked down in the interests of "National Security".

Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rice, Powell and others know what happened or at best know more than they are saying imho.

Peal Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, JFK, MLK, Malcolm X. It's just the way the US works. IMHO. The most powerful government in the world (allegedly) often seems clueless and bumbling. An image they like to foster on many occasions.

a reply to: seasonal

But what are we to expect when we have Presidents (Ford) pardon criminals (Nixon) and absolutely nothing happens. I believe if Nixon would have been jailed, we never would have had Reagan, Bush, Clinton......

Remembering too, Nixon lost the race against Kennedy, when Kennedy was assassinated, Ford served on the Warren Commission. Nixon got his term eventually, kept the war started under Johnson in Vietnam going, Ford got his turn, pardoned Nixon, too.

This country has been on that different road (to war) ever since Dallas.

Eisenhower warned US about danger of undue infuence by the Military Industrial Complex.

Here we are...

a reply to: intrptr

Very good points. Out leaders have been in an incestuous relationship with each other and large corps. And your time frame of 1960's seem about right.

a reply to: intrptr

The problem with the "they needed protection" theory is that they were allowed to fly before we supposedly knew who the attackers were.

This is all damning evidence a US ally was involved in the planning and operations before 9/11. Why did the Bush US government go to great lengths to stop the 29 pages from getting out to the public in 2002. You just know Bush did not fully back a widespread investigation into the allegations made in the 29 pages, against the Saudi nationals, who met the Pentagon 9/11 attackers! We probably never know for sure how deep this conspiracy goes, either way if there was Saudi officials helping the 9/11 suicide attackers, can't really rule out no contacts with US citizens too, who may have helped the 9/11 hijackers?

Saudi Arabia is a US ally, so there will be high level meetings, with military liaisons and civilians that have jobs with the intelligence services all the time. Easily could have had a secret, covert plan drawn up prior to 9/11, and discussed the change. for the middle east and help Al Queda attack America unhindered.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: seasonal

But what are we to expect when we have Presidents (Ford) pardon criminals (Nixon) and absolutely nothing happens. I believe if Nixon would have been jailed, we never would have had Reagan, Bush, Clinton......

Remembering too, Nixon lost the race against Kennedy, when Kennedy was assassinated, Ford served on the Warren Commission. Nixon got his term eventually, kept the war started under Johnson in Vietnam going, Ford got his turn, pardoned Nixon, too.

This country has been on that different road (to war) ever since Dallas.

Eisenhower warned US about danger of undue infuence by the Military Industrial Complex.

Here we are...

The notion that had JFK not been assassinated Viewnam would have played out differently is unsubstantiated. While I'm sure many here will dismiss what I'm about to link because it's a movie critique, everything he says is well-sourced, so take it or leave it. I think it shows that the alternate future regarding Vietnam if JFK finished his term was ambiguous at best.

JFK and Vietnam

Edit: And if you're open-minded enough to read that, and you're a movie buff, the rest of that site makes pretty interesting reading too. Lots of BS in that Oliver Stone movie.

a reply to: face23785

You have to be careful how you handle some critics of JFK conspiracy theories. There's a reactionary movement afoot - has been for some years, now - to recast Kennedy as a hardened Cold Warrior. This notion started on the US right (to pull down an icon of the US left). It was perversely embraced by elements on the US left (AKA "useful idiots") in order to satisfy their beliefs that US Foreign Policy is from start to finish a tool of bloodshed and oppression which cannot be checked by mere presidents.

But the thing is that JFK did have a plan to pull out of Vietnam completely by the end of 1965. It is well-documented, with written and taped records relating directly to Kennedy himself (as in, the words of his own mouth can be heard confirming his plans), and independent sources have gone on record talking about it since that time. Not only had JFK a plan, but he had already set it in motion, and it was an official policy of the federal Government on the day JFK was murdered.

Dave Reitzes has critiqued a movie, not the facts, and no matter how hard he debunks the movie the facts remain the same.

a reply to: audubon

If you actually read it, he does indeed source facts. Give the sources a read. Everything you just said is addressed. You either didn't read it all, or you ignored the bits you didn't like.

a reply to: face23785

I am well-aware of that page, and indeed Mr Reitzes' entire "JFK 100" list. Anyone who discusses the JFK assassination online will have had that site brandished triumphantly at them more times than they can recall.

If you check his sources against the sources in the link I provided, you will see that my link has far more bits of evidence than Mr Reitzes presents.

You might also note the name of the author of the letter I have linked to.

So, on the one hand we have one of the 20th Century's most prominent academics on politico-economic matters, and a personal associate of JFK himself, citing a wide range of concordant and legitimate historical records in a coherent manner and stating his certainty that JFK would have pulled out of Vietnam by 1965 (and providing a link to a fuller treatment of his assertions, if anyone cares to look into it for themselves).

On the other hand, we have a half-assed commentary on a couple of memos, provided by some jumped-up non-entity with no relevant political expertise, whose target is an Oliver Stone movie released 26 years ago.

Decisions, decisions...

a reply to: audubon

So the material he cites like quotes from RFK and actual government documents and transcripts is just nonsense because it's in the context of a movie critique?

Got it, you didn't read it all. Read it, don't just pretend you read it. Read it all, including the sources. With an open mind. It's ok to learn new things sometimes.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: audubon

So the material he cites like quotes from RFK and actual government documents and transcripts is just nonsense because it's in the context of a movie critique?

Got it, you didn't read it all. Read it, don't just pretend you read it. Read it all, including the sources. With an open mind. It's ok to learn new things sometimes.

You're just typing twaddle that doesn't relate to what I said at all, and presumably you're doing it in the hope of bamboozling other posters into thinking you have a stronger case than you actually have.

Well, I'm not interested in persuading the easily-bamboozled. Anyone with any critical faculties at all can read our exchange and see for themselves what has just happened. I'm content to quit this little spat right here and let things speak for themselves.

a reply to: audubon

Actually the material I linked you to directly addresses what you said. That's just more proof you haven't read it. Open your mind, and read. You will learn something.

a reply to: infolurker

I hate the Saudis! They should be an enemy of the U.S. and not an ally! Saudi Arabia is a country that rules by radical Islamist beliefs and has one of the worst human rights record in the world! We say we want to rid the world of ISIS terrorists, yet this is a country these terrorists can call home!

Every administration including Trump's have kissed their a$$! We continue to sell them billions in military planes and equipment. Don't be surprised if these weapons are some day turned against the U.S. or they fall into terrorist hands. It wasn't just a coincidence that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. It's also just not a coincidence that...

At least 13 relatives of Osama bin Laden, accompanied by bodyguards and associates, were allowed to leave the United States on a chartered flight eight days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks

Source

Nothing like sleeping with the enemy!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: seasonal

Remember they are allowed to fly when no one else in the US is and even when all the 9/11 hijackers are supposedly Saudi no real questions are asked.

A big show made of sending them home to protect them, ostensibly from retribution, but really just a show.
because after all, 17 of 21 hijackers were saudi nationals, saudi arabia was the prestaging platform for US invasion of Kuwait, and the Saudis are the largest Arms customer and Proxy war maker for the US in the Middle East.

They are waging unchecked aggressive war in Yemen and aiding and arming Insurgents in Syria.

All added up, points back to the US...

Actually, many of the alleged hijackers were still alive after the fact. Reiterated by the head of the FBI.



Hijack 'suspects' alive and well.

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.