• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged deliberate obstruction by the CIA of pre-9/11 investigations?

My personal opinion is hiding this information was out and out treason by the Bush administration. It is also clear that the real enemy all along has been the Saudi royal family. We should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11, NOTHING!


By protecting Saudi Arabia while at the same time sending Patriots to their deaths in Iraq (which is what Saudi Arabia also wants,) makes Bush not only the worst traitor in American History but a mass murderer as well.


These people know what is in those pages. We will not win the "War on Terror" by knowing only half the story of 9-11.....

http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=1m38s


Terry Strada - Co-Chair 9/11 Families United For Justice Against Terrorism - Speaks of Truth, Justice, and accountability.....

http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=26m58s
 
Last edited:
There's the thing - people find it hard to believe that a large number of terrorists could get in to the country, learn to fly planes, organise a coordinated hijack of several aircraft and slam them into very high profile buildings after it happened, but somehow expect everyone else to have figured out before it happened.
 
Your claim that you could not find "royal family", and "agreement" is not borne out by looking at the actual text version of this interview. ...
Here is the transcript for the Smerconish interview:

Smerconish: Is this all about a deal [agreement] that was made between the Wahabbi extremists and the Saudi family to buy piece in that country, is that the origin of this issue as far as you can tell of this issue

Bob Graham: Yes, and I think that has real implications for the Unite States, because Saudi Arabia has been the principle supporter financially and other wise of these extremist movements including Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, al Shabab, the al Qaeda franchise in Somalia and now ISIS are all the products due to Saudi desire and commitment to support these clerics who promote an extreme form of Islam and our failure to call Saudi Arabia to account, I think, has contributed to their realization they can do whatever they want and that even after extreme provocation we [the US] are not going to do anything.

Ok, so Smerconish doesn't say "royal family" or "agreement" verbatim. And Graham doesn't use these at all. But he says "yes" to Smerconish, so this somehow counts...

We still don't know who in Saudi Arabia did this, and what their relationship is to the King and the Saudi government - and what happened to them after 2001.

Is it not true that the King had OBL and AQ expelled from Saudi Arabia? Is it not true that, by accepting US troops into his country, effectively became an enemy of OBL? Is it not true that, when Sudan wanted to expel OBL and AQ, the King would not pardon him and not want him back?
We are seeing here rifts among factions of the Saudi élites.
You haven't seen the full story yet.

Graham doesn't explicitly accuse the "royal family", as that would implicate the King and his government in supporting specifically AQ.
It is definitely true that Saudi Arabia supports bad causes.
It is not made out however that the Kingdom supported the 9/11 attacks.

I think Graham has his own political goals in this game.
I believe he is probably right that this "has real implications", but you can't pretend you know yet just what these implications are.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud

Which members were financing this stuff?

That's the thing-even if there were evidence that any particular member of the House of Saud was knowingly, directly financing terrorism (there really isn't), it wouldn't follow that the whole family was implicated. And good luck to whomever attempts to track those funds; these people tend to cover their tracks well (gee, I wonder why...:rolleyes:)
 
Is it not true that the King had OBL and AQ expelled from Saudi Arabia?

Why do you believe them? OBL was one of their top Intelligence assets, and as far as I can see always was. What you call "expelled from Saudi Arabia" I call "plausible deniability" for anything OBL does.

Is it not true that, by accepting US troops into his country, effectively became an enemy of OBL?

Why do you believe the Saudis? If he was truly an enemy they would have his head cut off. What they wouldn't do is continue the flow of money to him and his family and his terrorist organization.

Is it not true that, when Sudan wanted to expel OBL and AQ, the King would not pardon him and not want him back?

Pardon him from what? If he was truly an enemy they would have him killed. Instead top Saudi officials later visited him in Afghanistan.

We are seeing here rifts among factions of the Saudi élites.

Actually what we are seeing is the power agreement made between the Sauds and the Wahhabis made in the 1700's still holding strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

From the Library of Congress Country Study on Saudi Arabia
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/sa/saud_wahhabi.htm

You haven't seen the full story yet.

Because it's against the law to reveal the full story

Graham doesn't explicitly accuse the "royal family", as that would implicate the King and his government in supporting specifically AQ.

Former Senator Graham publicly declares his belief that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 hijackers

“I am convinced that there was direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and that a Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. Based on the evidence discovered by the Joint Inquiry, I further believe that al Bayoumi was acting at the direction of elements of the Saudi government and that an official from the Islamic and Cultural Affairs section of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, Fahad al Thumairy, likely played some role in the support network for the 9/11 Attacks.”

http://blog.motleyrice.com/former-s...-of-saudi-arabia-supported-the-911-hijackers/

It is definitely true that Saudi Arabia supports bad causes.

The 9-11 Victims families can attest to that.....

Terry Strada- "Where is the outrage?".....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=32m3s



It is not made out however that the Kingdom supported the 9/11 attacks.

Sen Graham knows more about 9-11 than you do.

Sen Bob Graham- "Here are some facts"....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=21m40s

I think Graham has his own political goals in this game.

Don't tell us what those "political goals" are though in this "game." And Rep. Walter Jones? Who do you think he means when he says...."Don't you have a right to know the truth, of who was behind 9-11?"

Rep. Walter Jones..
http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=23m5s


Do you think he "has his own political goals in this game," as well? When he says (25:30 mark) "The Saudis were behind 9-11."

http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=25m27s

It isn't a "game", it's a cover up of treason and mass murder.
 
Last edited:
Wait...I don't get Graham's point. The public report of the 9/11 Commission says this:

It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities.121 Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)122

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Yet, there are 28 pages that show, on the contrary, that the Saudi government-including the House of Saud itself-was directly responsible for 9/11? Which is it? :confused:

At most, Al-Qaeda took advantage of large, poor regulated charities with Saudi government sponsorship, and there could very well have been (let me rephrase...it's highly probable) some intelligence and military officers in the Kingdom who sympathized with al-Qaeda, and turned a blind eye to them. But that would be impossible to prove with certainty.

At any rate, I think it's embarrassing and detrimental for Saudi-American relations, because what the 28 redacted ages show surely doesn't look good. But the finer nuances of this stuff don't matter to those who think "the Saudis" are a monolithic group, or who think US government officials "LIHOP." :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Wait...I don't get Graham's point. The public report of the 9/11 Commission says this:



http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Yet, there are 28 pages that show, on the contrary, that the Saudi government-including the House of Saud itself-was directly responsible for 9/11? Which is it? :confused:

At most, Al-Qaeda took advantage of large, poor regulated charities with Saudi government sponsorship, and there could very well have been (let me rephrase...it's highly probable) some intelligence and military officers in the Kingdom who sympathized with al-Qaeda, and turned a blind eye to them. But that would be impossible to prove with certainty.

At any rate, I think it's embarrassing and detrimental for Saudi-American relations, because what the 28 redacted ages show surely doesn't look good. But the finer nuances of this stuff don't matter to those who think "the Saudis" are a monolithic group, or who think US government officials "LIHOP." :rolleyes:

I am not sure if this is worth mentioning, but if Graham is aware of content in those pages that explicitly indicates that al Bayoumi and al Thumairy aided 9/11 terrorists and does not reveal it, he is technically guilty of Misprision of treason. Granted, since these documents are classified, revealing this could also subject him to prosecution, though the law is a bit more hazy on that (US congress has voted down blanket revelation prohibition laws multiple times). The language he has used stops short of saying that those documents contain information which is that specific.
 
Why do you believe them? OBL was one of their top Intelligence assets, and as far as I can see always was. What you call "expelled from Saudi Arabia" I call "plausible deniability" for anything OBL does.



Why do you believe the Saudis? If he was truly an enemy they would have his head cut off. What they wouldn't do is continue the flow of money to him and his family and his terrorist organization.



Pardon him from what? If he was truly an enemy they would have him killed. Instead top Saudi officials later visited him in Afghanistan.



Actually what we are seeing is the power agreement made between the Sauds and the Wahhabis made in the 1700's still holding strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

From the Library of Congress Country Study on Saudi Arabia
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/sa/saud_wahhabi.htm



Because it's against the law to reveal the full story



Former Senator Graham publicly declares his belief that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 hijackers

“I am convinced that there was direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and that a Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. Based on the evidence discovered by the Joint Inquiry, I further believe that al Bayoumi was acting at the direction of elements of the Saudi government and that an official from the Islamic and Cultural Affairs section of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, Fahad al Thumairy, likely played some role in the support network for the 9/11 Attacks.”

http://blog.motleyrice.com/former-s...-of-saudi-arabia-supported-the-911-hijackers/



The 9-11 Victims families can attest to that.....

Terry Strada- "Where is the outrage?".....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=32m3s





Sen Graham knows more about 9-11 than you do.

Sen Bob Graham- "Here are some facts"....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=21m40s



Don't tell us what those "political goals" are though in this "game." And Rep. Walter Jones? Who do you think he means when he says...."Don't you have a right to know the truth, of who was behind 9-11?"

Rep. Walter Jones..
http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=23m5s


Do you think he "has his own political goals in this game," as well? When he says (25:30 mark) "The Saudis were behind 9-11."

http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=25m27s

It isn't a "game", it's a cover up of treason and mass murder.

Where is the Pulitzer? Oh, darn, opinions don't hack it. And youtube, "super".
 
Why do you believe them? OBL was one of their top Intelligence assets, and as far as I can see always was. What you call "expelled from Saudi Arabia" I call "plausible deniability" for anything OBL does.
Interesting idea. Evidence?

Why do you believe the Saudis? If he was truly an enemy they would have his head cut off. What they wouldn't do is continue the flow of money to him and his family and his terrorist organization.
Interesting idea. Evidence?
Why bring in his family? You think the Bin Ladin family danced to Osama's tune? Or are they not merely business people doing - well - business?

Pardon him from what? If he was truly an enemy they would have him killed. Instead top Saudi officials later visited him in Afghanistan.
Interesting idea. Evidence?

Actually what we are seeing is the power agreement made between the Sauds and the Wahhabis made in the 1700's still holding strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

From the Library of Congress Country Study on Saudi Arabia
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/sa/saud_wahhabi.htm
Interesting idea.
So the House of Saud has for centuries been, and still is, a monolithic bloc, characterized by constant, unchanging ideology and strict adherence to it? There are no rifts and divisions with the house? Like no King has ever been assassinated or ousted by relatives? And also no conflicts of interest and struggles between the King and the Wahhabi ulama? Interesting.

Because it's against the law to reveal the full story
Like BrianH pointed out: It may well be against the law to NOT reveal the full story. Obstruction of justice, or some such law.

Former Senator Graham publicly declares his belief that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 hijackers

“I am convinced that there was direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and that a Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. Based on the evidence discovered by the Joint Inquiry, I further believe that al Bayoumi was acting at the direction of elements of the Saudi government and that an official from the Islamic and Cultural Affairs section of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, Fahad al Thumairy, likely played some role in the support network for the 9/11 Attacks.”

http://blog.motleyrice.com/former-s...-of-saudi-arabia-supported-the-911-hijackers/
Now that really IS interesting.
While I would not trust an unknown blogger to fairly represent the context, I see that this quote is plucked from court procedings, three years ago. What became of the case? I understand that all court cases and decisions made there have publicly accessible documents. Either the court confirmed in some way Graham's testimony and considered it legally relevant, or it didn't. In the latter case, it would state reasons. Can you elaborate?

The 9-11 Victims families can attest to that.....

Terry Strada- "Where is the outrage?".....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=32m3s
Noted with interest.

Sen Graham knows more about 9-11 than you do.

Sen Bob Graham- "Here are some facts"....
http://youtu.be/sy97uKT6hjE?t=21m40s

Don't tell us what those "political goals" are though in this "game."
I would not speculate here, but he is not the only one who knows more about this, but it seems not everyone is joining in his song, so are all the others who saw what you must think is effectively evidence of high treason, but choose to go along with the cover-up, effectively traitors themselves? I don't see even Graham going that far. There seems to be a difference of opinion, and those different opionons are of course guided by political positions and goals.

And Rep. Walter Jones? Who do you think he means when he says...."Don't you have a right to know the truth, of who was behind 9-11?"

Rep. Walter Jones..
http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=23m5s
Ouch - talking with certified crackpot and delusional rabble-rouser Alex Jones - doesn't inspire confidence in the good judgement of Rep. Walter Jones :eek:

Do you think he "has his own political goals in this game," as well? When he says (25:30 mark) "The Saudis were behind 9-11."

http://youtu.be/MmS43ATQanQ?t=25m27s
Absolutely, yes, I think so.

It isn't a "game", it's a cover up of treason and mass murder.
Ah thanks for saying this out loud.
Graham and Jones should simply take photos of the 28 pages and publish them. Or if that isn't possible, memorize as much as they can, and take it to court. You say that's illegal? Just wait and see: It's not exactly easy to disappear Congressmen and shut them up as political prisoners.



ETA: I should clarify that, despite my contrarianism, I think this topic - what did which Saudis do or know, what do which US actors know about what the Saudis did - is the most important topic left in the entire 9/11 CT realm. I believe there really are things under the carpet that ought to be uncovered, and consequences drawn. I don't know what exactly is there in the 28 pages, and whether or not the information in there is better than unproven speculation (as Philip Zelikow argues), but I agree with Graham that they should be made public, and to let the intelligence of the public decide what to make of the information.
And natuarally, this comment is not limited to just those 28 pages.
But this is my personal opinion - it flows from my political philosophy, stances and goals.
 
Last edited:
... Furthermore Tenet's explanation was refuted by FBI agents Rossini and Miller (stationed at Alec Station at the time) who told James Bamford (for his book and a NOVA special) that they were ordered not to tell the FBI. Later we have the same pattern of withholding which obstructed the Cole investigation.

Bob Graham just published a book on the Saudi role of supporting al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Was all the nonsense about sharing failures a cover story to protect high level officials who ordered US intelligence to back off Saudi links to al Qaeda? ...

Quoting this after a quick search for "Rossini", to link to fresh material:

Jeff Stein: The Inside Information That Could Have Stopped 9/11. Newsweek, January 14, 2015

Jeff Stein said:
All these years later, Rossini still regrets complying with that command. If he had disobeyed the gag order, the nearly 3,000 Americans slaughtered on 9/11 would probably still be alive. “This is the pain that never escapes me, that haunts me each and every day of my life,” he wrote in the draft of a book he shared with me. “I feel like I failed, even though I know it was the system and the intelligence community on the whole that failed.”
...
But blaming “the system” sidesteps the issue of why one CIA officer in particular, Michael Anne Casey, ordered Rossini’s cohort, Miller, not to alert the FBI about al-Mihdhar. Or why the CIA’s Alec Station bosses failed to alert the FBI—or any other law enforcement agency—about the arrival of Nawaf al-Hazmi, another key Al-Qaeda operative (and future hijacker) the agency had been tracking to and from a terrorist summit in Malaysia.
...
Rossini ... wrote, “When I confronted this person...she told me that ‘this was not a matter for the FBI. The next al-Qaeda attack is going to happen in Southeast Asia and their visas for America are just a diversion.
 
Because it's against the law to reveal the full story

Normally I ignore your post but this one really caught my attention. What law exactly is this?

I bet you don't even understand why back it 2001, the CIA giving information to the FBI could be breaking the law (and likely inadmissible in their case).

Funny how "truthers" think that standards after the "Patriot Act" they claim is a violation of rights were not standard before hand.
 
Last edited:
Well it seems we have several highly qualified U.S. Intelligence experts on the board, and they have generously shared their expert and enlightening advice.

First off is BrianH who points out that if Bush did indeed cover up that Saudi Arabia was behind and/or involved in the 9-11 Attacks, making him a traitor, then obviously it is Sen. Bob Graham who should go to prison for treason.

..if Graham is aware of content in those pages that explicitly indicates that al Bayoumi and al Thumairy aided 9/11 terrorists and does not reveal it, he is technically guilty of Misprision of treason. Granted, since these documents are classified, revealing this could also subject him to prosecution.

So basically he points out that if Bush is a traitor Graham goes to prison for not revealing that. He also goes to prison if he does reveal it. Only an expert could point that out. As the link he provides states in full.......

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382

Clearly Graham should have notified Bush, that Bush was a traitor. Having press conferences to urge the current President to release these pages and filing sworn court documents is obviously a ploy by the crafty former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee to cover all that up. As Jref U.S. Intelligence expert, and German citizen Oystein agrees.....

Like BrianH pointed out: It may well be against the law to NOT reveal the full story.

So Graham not revealing classified information should land him in prison and the jref Intelligence expert also agrees that he could face prison by releasing the info as well, but should anyway, because as everyone knows, politicians don't go to jail........

You say that's illegal? Just wait and see: It's not exactly easy to disappear Congressmen and shut them up as political prisoners.

This law against revealing classified information is news to fellow Jref Intelligence expert DGM, after all, when has it ever been against the Law to reveal classified information?

What law exactly is this?

LOL!!

In order to expose his expertise on law DGM then says the following....

I bet you don't even understand why back it 2001, the CIA giving information to the FBI could be breaking the law (and likely inadmissible in their case).

DGM is an expert. He must be, he has almost 19,000 posts on jref, I'd say that's pretty good credentials. So why pay any attention to Barbara A. Grewe senior counsel to the 9-11 Commission who writes reports like this........

Legal Barriers to Information Sharing:
The Erection of a Wall Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations

Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Staff Monograph

Barbara A. Grewe
Senior Counsel for Special Projects

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

What was the conclusion of this report?.......

Conclusion:

"It is clear therefore, that the information sharing failures in the summer of 2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the 'failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared."

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

compare with JREF Expert DGM...

you don't even understand why back it 2001, the CIA giving information to the FBI could be breaking the law (and likely inadmissible in their case).

Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared." - Barbara A. Grewe senior counsel to the 9-11 Commission
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

Since I like you guys I could do you a favor. I could give Graham your expert advice if you like. Lets see what was it again?...

He and Rep Jones could grab those 28 pages and take pictures of it, which should be a breeze.....

Graham and Jones should simply take photos of the 28 pages and publish them.

I could tell him to load them on his Instagram page, and threaten him with prison if he doesn't.

Like BrianH pointed out: It may well be against the law to NOT reveal the full story.

Or should I try and convince him there isn't a law against posting classified information?

What law exactly is this?

I prefer the prison threat but it's up to you guys. You're the experts. You must be.

Otherwise to give advice on Intelligence matters to a two term Governor of Florida who served 18 years in the Senate, and former Head of the Senate Intelligence committee, and co chairman of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and author of the Book Intelligence Matters, ....to be giving him advice on intelligence matters would make you look rather buffoonish wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
...
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2382

Clearly Graham should have notified Bush, that Bush was a traitor.
Or he should have notified a judge.
 
Or he should have notified a judge.

Do you know the difference between the words and & or? And he's already done that anyway. He doesn't have to notify a judge AND The president. But he already has anyway.

Graham knows how to deal with classified material you don't.

Do you want me to forward your suggestions to him? I can ask if he has an Instagram account that he and Jones can load the pictures they take of the 28 pages.

LOL!

BTW you might want to research just what the procedures are for reading those pages
 
compare with JREF Expert DGM...

Never claimed to be an expert. Prior to the "Patriot act", could the FBI use information gathered from wire taps? It would not have been illegal, just useless in prosecution (the FBIs job to collect information to do just this).

Please answer.
 
Last edited:
...

Graham knows how to deal with classified material you don't.

...

Graham does not know how, since he is talking about it. That is not allowed, but then he is an old nut who is selling books, and he was Chairperson of Senate Intelligence Committee, it looks like he failed as an Intel Expert.

Bush does not classify the documents, he is not a worker bee, he was the president, not an Intel super Chairperson like your Graham who sells books and gets press time with manufactured press conferences to spread doubt and BS.

How did Graham, Chairperson of Senate Intelligence Committee fail to fund and oversee the intel community to stop 911? Why are you not in Intel to stop the next surprise attack? oops, it was a surprise. Did Graham inflate his footballs in a sauna.
 

Back
Top Bottom