The "28 pages" thread

[Oystein]

I don't see that we have a thread dedicated to the infamous "28 pages".

Some truthers have set up a pretty good page about this: http://28pages.org/

What's it all about? From the website's FAQ:

Q: Who wrote the 28 pages and where are they found, exactly?

A: The 28 pages are an entire section within the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (not the 9/11 Commission Report). The joint inquiry was a collaborative undertaking of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and its report was published in December 2002. The redacted section, titled “Part 4: Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters,” begins on page 395 of the report.

...

Q: What countries are implicated in the report?

A: According to former Senator Bob Graham, “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11 and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.”

There are two current legislative initiatives in Congress, each sponsored by a handful of Congressmen:
House Resolution 14
Senate Bill 1471

My personal take on this issue is that the content of the 28 pages may well be "interesting". It may well no longer compromise "national security" (if indeed it ever did), and I am all for declassifying such stuff.
Many truthers want them declassified too.
Which is strange, as, apparently, the story is that Saudi individuals helped finance a group of 19 terrorists, most of them Saudis, hell-bent on learning how to fly so they could pilot hijacked airliners into 4 iconic targets, for the praise of Allah. I.o.w. a footnote supporting the "official" story.
Other truthers are already calling this (the current drive to release these pages) a limited hang-out, a distraction away from the real perps (Israel - who else ) and a means to rein in a Saudi leadership alleged to break free from their NWO overlords.

 

[Oystein]

Now my immediate occasion to open this thread is a new Petition at whitehouse.gov calling directly on the Obama administration to declassify.
28pages.org's Action Alert is at http://28pages.org/act/petition/

The Petition itself is at
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//p...es-foreign-government-financing-911-hijackers

It was started on August 26, and by the Obama administration's self-imposed rules needs 100,000 signatures within 30 days (September 25) to get at least consideration and a reply.
It may come as little surprise that currently, on the 4th day, they haven't even reached 400 signatures (0.4% of target).
It is trivial to predict that 100,000 signatures is FAR outside the reach of the Truth Movement, since it us made up of a very tiny minority of losers on the far fringe of society, numbering a few ten thousand individuals only, most of which are badly motivated and apathetic.

Perhaps the more interesting yard stick is a similar Petition, also at whitehouse.gov, from January 2014:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...nd-walter-jones-r-nc-declassify-congressional
It ended with only 2,027 signatures (2.0% of target).

Anyone up for bets if the new petition fares better?
I'd wage for "worse".

 

[DGM]

My personal take on this issue is that the content of the 28 pages may well be "interesting". It may well no longer compromise "national security" (if indeed it ever did), and I am all for declassifying such stuff.

Naturally, you're not an American................

Many truthers want them declassified too. Which is strange, as, apparently, the story is that Saudi individuals helped finance a group of 19 terrorists, most of them Saudis, hell-bent on learning how to fly so they could pilot hijacked airliners into 4 iconic targets, for the praise of Allah. I.o.w. a footnote supporting the "official" story.

I think you're right. Not really new news, we've known all along there was Saudis involvement.

Other truthers are already calling this (the current drive to release these pages) a limited hang-out, a distraction away from the real perps (Israel - who else ) and a means to rein in a Saudi leadership alleged to break free from their NWO overlords.

As you know, this is where it flies off the rails. Short version. The complexity of the Saudis kingdom is not really well understood by most.

 

[jaydeehess]

I side with "worse" as well.
While declassification is probably in order, attaching it to a truther group poisons it.

Hell, I'd sign it but a Canadian's signature wouldn't carry much weight with the USgov.

 

[ozeco41]

The US is a country which operates under the provisions of an explicit written Constitution and the processes of "Rule of Law".

Those processes have determined that 28 pages of sensitive material should not be made public. There are due processes within "Rule of Law" for those who object to appeal the withholding. There are due processes for arguing that "Rule of Law" is not being followed (i.e. those two are appeals on "content" and "process" respectively.)

The remaining category is for people who disagree with the Constitutionally determined standards and processes. That is a political issue. It goes to the questions "How far should a governed community go in responding to the demands of a minority when the majority are - by definition - satisfied?" (Think twice about my "by definition" - it is more subtle than it may look. )

In the US the mechanism for testing the validity of rules and their application ultimately lies with the US Supreme Court. The requirement for 100,000 signatories is a couple of layers remote from USSC - a valid form of mechanism to filter out the minority interests of the ratbag and manic fringe plus those issues which may be of genuine concern to members of the minority but are not of sufficient interest/importance for the majority to want community effort expended exploring them.

Stated simplistically the majority do not want such minorities to work against the interests of the majority. That argument can easily be fleshed out in more rigorous but more lengthy wording.

Bottom line - they ain't got the numbers for that avenue of pursuit. And the country has rules to make sure they don't go down that path until they demonstrate sufficient support.

100,000 or more in support. (OK for the maths pedants 99,999 or more )

 

[Oystein]

INFIGHTING

The info / activist page I linked above, www.28pages.org, was created by a certain Brian McGlinchey, who also created the current Petition at whitehouse.org.
It is being promoted by Jon Gold, self-styled lobbyist for "the" 9/11 families, for example at 911Blogger
Needless to say: 28pages.org is seeking donations.

They are not the only ones:

There's also http://hr14.org/
This website, I understand, is run by Les Jamieson, a someone whom I associate somewhat with AE911Truth. The domain hr14.org is registered by a certain Roy J. Kendall - don't know if that is a techie or an activist.
They seek donations, too
They have their own Petition:
http://hr14.org/sign-rootsaction-petition/
http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/tell-congress-end-secrecy-on-9-11-declassify-the-28-pages
Created about 2 months ago, they have 640 signatures so far.

Perhaps the 28pages petition isn't promoted by the big players such as ae911t because they are actually competing?


But it gets much worse than that:
I listened to last wednesday's "9/11 Truth and other Deep State Crime Teleconference" this morning. Here is the mp3. Fast forward to about 58:30, where Cheryl Curtiss of "Connecticut 9/11 Truth" is introduced. She goes on to explain that 14 "activists" got together, anal-ysed the hr14 page, found it isn't truthy enough, and wrote a big letter to Les Jamieson, asking him to scratch lots of stuff and instead include others.
They don't like that hr14.org presents the issue as if actually 19 hijackers had flown planes into those targets, when everybody knows that several of them were still alive in 2002. Yeah, right.
I guess now we know why the truth movement isn't pushing for the release of this material: It might actually contain more evidence against their delusions.


In the meantime, the whitehouse petition has barely surpassed 500 signatures, after 5 days. If they can keep up that rate (unlikely), they might end up with 3,000 total, 3% of what's required.
Oh those millions demanding a new investigation...

 

[Sabrina]

Eh, just wait for another... twenty to thirty odd years and it'll probably be declassified then. I would imagine the information contained therein would not be earth-shattering by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd be curious to know what level the information was classified at. Although I would assume that part was redacted as well when the report was released.

 

[Oystein]

In a frontpage-article on February 5, 2015, online on Feb 04, the New Yor Times regurgitated the position of the "declassify" proponents (the real politicians, not truthers):

Claims Against Saudis Cast New Light on Secret Pages of 9/11 Report
...
Mr. Graham has repeatedly said it shows that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,”...
...
Proponents of releasing Part 4, titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain National Security Matters,” have suggested that the Bush and Obama administrations have held it back for fear of alienating an influential military and economic partner rather than for any national security consideration.

The latter paragraph I think addresses DGM's concern, and puts into perspective Sabrina's prediction.

Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said “the authority to declassify this document lies with President Obama.”

This partially addresses ozeco's legal musings: No need, apparently, for law-making interjection. There are several potential avenues, apparently, to get a review.

Oh, and I disagree with ozeco (provided I am reading him right, which I may well not do) that the will of a majority ought to take precedence over rights of a minority or even individuals. There are legal grounds for keeping information classified, but the ground rule is that public documents must be public. If, as Representative Devin Nunes seems to hint, none of the enumerated reasons to classify applies, and if, as others plead, some victims of 9/11 have standing to use the 28 pages as evidence in support of claims currently under litigation, then they are entitled to have them declassified, even if, hypothetically, a 99.9% majority finds this politically undesirable.

 

[jaydeehess]

The complexity of the Saudi Royal family and its government is very foreign to westerners. There are, iirc, hundreds, of family members, some playboys, some devout Muslims, some actual working members of the governing of the country.

Problem is that no matter the role the people who financed 9/11, any family member, in the eyes and perception of the world, will implicate the entire government and The Royal family as a whole.

IMHO there were probably several rich, though probably not deeply involved in governance, members of the Royal family who financed, at least partially, the attacks. Given however, the dependence on oil, and the willingness of the Saudis to sell it to the USA, making such things public would cause an outcry to a) cut the Saudis off even if it meant buying more expensive oil from even less desirable countries, b) a call for war against S.A.

Its b) that would really throw a huge wrench into the workings of the world, stock market plummets, and an enormous recruiting meme for radical Islam.

 

[cantonear1968]

I don't see that we have a thread dedicated to the infamous "28 pages".

Some truthers have set up a pretty good page about this: http://28pages.org/

What's it all about? From the website's FAQ:


There are two current legislative initiatives in Congress, each sponsored by a handful of Congressmen:
House Resolution 14
Senate Bill 1471

My personal take on this issue is that the content of the 28 pages may well be "interesting". It may well no longer compromise "national security" (if indeed it ever did), and I am all for declassifying such stuff.
Many truthers want them declassified too.
Which is strange, as, apparently, the story is that Saudi individuals helped finance a group of 19 terrorists, most of them Saudis, hell-bent on learning how to fly so they could pilot hijacked airliners into 4 iconic targets, for the praise of Allah. I.o.w. a footnote supporting the "official" story.
Other truthers are already calling this (the current drive to release these pages) a limited hang-out, a distraction away from the real perps (Israel - who else ) and a means to rein in a Saudi leadership alleged to break free from their NWO overlords.

This has been a common argument from truthers as of late. They have no evidence to support their claims so they are entirely reliant on non-evidence of the suppressed papers as "proof" of their claims. While I support the release of these papers (with the caveat that it truly doesn't violate national security) I too believe that it will end up much ado about nothing. At least not anything that we already know and/or speculate.

It's interesting you brought up the Israel angle because I had one person state that Israel is named in it because IIRC one congressman who read the papers used the word "countries" when describing them. SA is known, so more than one means.....Jews......or some such logic.

However, one CT that may have validity: in the 9/11 Commission Report, they state that they found no credible evidence of any country or government support of the hijackers and planners. My understanding is they had access to these papers which would not make this statement accurate. When I have a minute I will look up the proper quote and page number from the report.

 

[cantonear1968]

The complexity of the Saudi Royal family and its government is very foreign to westerners. There are, iirc, hundreds, of family members, some playboys, some devout Muslims, some actual working members of the governing of the country.

Problem is that no matter the role the people who financed 9/11, any family member, in the eyes and perception of the world, will implicate the entire government and The Royal family as a whole.

IMHO there were probably several rich, though probably not deeply involved in governance, members of the Royal family who financed, at least partially, the attacks. Given however, the dependence on oil, and the willingness of the Saudis to sell it to the USA, making such things public would cause an outcry to a) cut the Saudis off even if it meant buying more expensive oil from even less desirable countries, b) a call for war against S.A.

Its b) that would really throw a huge wrench into the workings of the world, stock market plummets, and an enormous recruiting meme for radical Islam.

I was going to make mention of this in my reply. No different than if a low level government employee was found to be funding money to the mafia. Doesn't mean the Obama administration is supporting them. And it may not even prove that the money was known to be funding a terrorist attack against the US. I'm sure there are supporters in SA who would fund an operation against say Iran. Or Iraq, at the time. If this does prove Saudi government involvement it doesn't automatically prove they funded attacks against the US.

OR, by the truther extension, that 9/11 was a Bush operation!

 

[theprestige]

My personal take on this issue is that the content of the 28 pages may well be "interesting". It may well no longer compromise "national security" (if indeed it ever did), and I am all for declassifying such stuff.

Obviously it does no good for someone who has never seen the material to say it should be declassified.

In fact, it's kind of absurd to first say that you have no idea what the material is, and then say that you think it should be declassified. Only someone who has seen the material, and is capable of evaluating it properly in the context of the national interest, can really make a good decision about whether to declassify it.

So. Given that you would like to see the material declassified, what mechanism would you propose, to ensure that the material received a proper review, leading to a responsible and informed decision to declassify it, without imprudently disseminating sensitive information more widely than necessary?

 

[Oystein]

...
However, one CT that may have validity: in the 9/11 Commission Report, they state that they found no credible evidence of any country or government support of the hijackers and planners. My understanding is they had access to these papers which would not make this statement accurate. When I have a minute I will look up the proper quote and page number from the report.

If memory serves: Look around page 171

 

[cantonear1968]

Here is the relevant passage I was referring to:

9/11 Commission Report
Chapter 5.4 "A Money Trail?"
page 171
pdf #188

It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban finacially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governements may have contained al Qaeda symplathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fund raising activities. 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.)

IF the Commission had access to the 28 pages this does seem to conflict with what has been leaked in the pages.

 

[cantonear1968]

If memory serves: Look around page 171

 

[jaydeehess]

I was going to make mention of this in my reply. No different than if a low level government employee was found to be funding money to the mafia. Doesn't mean the Obama administration is supporting them. And it may not even prove that the money was known to be funding a terrorist attack against the US. I'm sure there are supporters in SA who would fund an operation against say Iran. Or Iraq, at the time. If this does prove Saudi government involvement it doesn't automatically prove they funded attacks against the US.

OR, by the truther extension, that 9/11 was a Bush operation!

'zactly.

Works in reverse as well.

There are countries in which the media is basically an extension of gov't. Hussien's Iraq would be one. All works, all magazines, all TV, radio and newspapers strictly controlled. If one comes from such a country and then sees that a video of for instance, of a Koran burning, one would assume it must be a USgov backed statement.

 

[cantonear1968]

Obviously it does no good for someone who has never seen the material to say it should be declassified.

In fact, it's kind of absurd to first say that you have no idea what the material is, and then say that you think it should be declassified. Only someone who has seen the material, and is capable of evaluating it properly in the context of the national interest, can really make a good decision about whether to declassify it.

So. Given that you would like to see the material declassified, what mechanism would you propose, to ensure that the material received a proper review, leading to a responsible and informed decision to declassify it, without imprudently disseminating sensitive information more widely than necessary?

I agree with you, and I think Oystein does as well. However, the importance of this piece of history should be weighed against that national security. If SA WAS involved on some level, then their involvement should be made public and reparations made. Much like the USS Liberty. I don't think anyone at this stage 15 years on would support a declaration of war, but public acknowledgement and reparations would be in order.

And to answer your question directly, I think that review and request for release has been made. There have been several government officials who have had access to the pages and called for their release.

 

[Oystein]

The complexity of the Saudi Royal family and its government is very foreign to westerners. There are, iirc, hundreds, of family members, some playboys, some devout Muslims, some actual working members of the governing of the country.

Agreed.

Problem is that no matter the role the people who financed 9/11, any family member, in the eyes and perception of the world, will implicate the entire government and The Royal family as a whole.

A proper investigation ought to be able to disentangle this web.

IMHO there were probably several rich, though probably not deeply involved in governance, members of the Royal family who financed, at least partially, the attacks.

Bob Graham (whose motives may be questioned; I have no insight or opinion on this yet) seems quite clear that some such individuals are place quite close to the King and the Saudi administration in and before 2001.

Given however, the dependence on oil, and the willingness of the Saudis to sell it to the USA, making such things public would cause an outcry to a) cut the Saudis off even if it meant buying more expensive oil from even less desirable countries, b) a call for war against S.A.

Its b) that would really throw a huge wrench into the workings of the world, stock market plummets, and an enormous recruiting meme for radical Islam.

I think you have fallen for some scare tactics.
There are, in the first step, two possibilities:
Either the King, the Saudi government, or most senior officials thereof (cabinet rank, heads of major agencies such as intelligence services, key diplomats) knowingly aided and financed the attacks; then indeed the Kingdom can be said to have launched a war of aggression on the United States, and not to defend against this might be construed as High Treason. Also, this information would be political to the utmost degree, and be put under deliberation by the Sovereigh of the USA, which is The People, represented by Congress.
Or the culprits are lesser individuals; then the victims of these murders and their families have the goddamned right to know and prosecute and let justice run its course, while having it clear that this is an act of crime more that war. Saudi Arabia presumably wants to sell oil more than protect Al Qaeda supporters, so I think it we can reasonably expect the Kingdom to cooperate on the matter, apprehend the guilty, and make sure they are handed a fitting verdict and punishment. (I have a hunch that some of this has been done clandestinely already; and perhaps compensation to victims has in part beemn funded out of secret deals taking care of this problem)

 

[cantonear1968]

'zactly.

Works in reverse as well.

There are countries in which the media is basically an extension of gov't. Hussien's Iraq would be one. All works, all magazines, all TV, radio and newspapers strictly controlled. If one comes from such a country and then sees that a video of for instance, of a Koran burning, one would assume it must be a USgov backed statement.

True!

I never thought of it in that direction. You're exactly right. Again, this is simply truthers taking "A" and thinking it proves "E" while ignoring "B, C & D" in between.

I think it's been mentioned here before but there's a great South Park episode where aliens come down to earth with a great 3 step plan:

Step 1: steal women's underwear
Step 3: make a million dollars

Truthers always forget step 2.

 

[Oystein]

Obviously it does no good for someone who has never seen the material to say it should be declassified.

In fact, it's kind of absurd to first say that you have no idea what the material is, and then say that you think it should be declassified. Only someone who has seen the material, and is capable of evaluating it properly in the context of the national interest, can really make a good decision about whether to declassify it.

There is a case to declassify this section of the Joint Inquiry report precisely BECAUSE several ranking people - Congressmen, former heads of intelligence review bodies - HAVE actually read the pages and say they contain nothing that actually touches on national security, and that they ought to be released. I don't know if and what beef former Senator Bob Graham may be cooking, but I have seen no one argue convincingly that he is a kook or a liar. As he was the chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence around the 9/11 attacks and in that position also co-chaired and presented the very Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that we are debating here (it's its report that contains the redacted 28 pages), he is eminently qualified to have a reasoned position on the issue - that's the sort of authority we can validly summon when we don't have the data or the tools ourself to come to conclusions.

So. Given that you would like to see the material declassified, what mechanism would you propose, to ensure that the material received a proper review, leading to a responsible and informed decision to declassify it, without imprudently disseminating sensitive information more widely than necessary?

I have no well-formed opinion on that. Must I? I am sure the staffs of the two dozend or so members of Congress who sponsor the two legal initiatives should have the resources to make a decent proposal here.