Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say

[OCaptain]

Hey, Chris Mohr, do you believe it is at all possible that elements within the U.S. government could have covertly funded Al-Qaeda, monitored their progress in planning and organizing the attacks, allowed the attacks to occur, and then in the aftermath, stifle the investigation and mislead the 9/11 Commission?

In other words, forget the whole natural collapse/controlled demolition debate for a moment. Could the 9/11 attacks have been the product of a high-level "inside job"? If not, why?

Is there any evidence for it? And keep in mind, the fact that our government has lied in the past is NOT evidence they lied this time.

 

[OCaptain]

In other words, LIHOP if not MIHOP? (Let it happen on purpose vs make it happen on purpose)

I don't know. I spent hundreds of hours studying controlled demolition before going public with my first debate. Hundreds more before debating Richard Gage. Hundreds more preparing the YouTube Gage rebuttal videos. Hundreds more since, including the Millette dust study.

The falsehoods and outright lies I have encountered in 9/11 CD theories would make it impossible for me to approach your question with any real openness any more, since the evidence for a government conspiracy is provided by the same people who fed me the CD theories. Plus, years before all of this, I had the experience of disproving a supposed government conspiracy around the first Iraq War. I'm fed up with the whole thing and have decided against researching yet another set of claims in this area. I'm damaged goods, sorry.

Someone else will have to prove the truth of LIHOP claims. Or disprove them. What I took on was big enough, believe me.

Yeah, Chris, the UFO investigation analogy doesn't really work because the US government did investigate UFOs three times - Project Sign, Project Grudge and Project Blue Book.

 

[shure]

There are many reasons why the Bush administration censored those pages. None of those reasons are good or in the interest of the national security of the American people.

We know that the information censored in the joint intelligence inquiry was about the Saudi connection to the 9/11 plot.

We know that when a 9/11 commission investigator tried to follow up on the Saudi connection she was fired by Philip Zelikow who insured that the Saudi connection would be covered up.

We know that the 9/11 commision stated that there was no foreign government involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

We know that is a LIE because we know the censored pages in the joint inquiry show foreign goverment involvement.

That foreign goverment is Saudi Arabia.

Therefore we can say for a fact that the Bush administration covered up the foreign involvement of Saudi Arabia in the events of 9/11.

We can also say for a fact that the Bush administration then tried to place blame on Iraq and illegally attacked them instead.

Therefore it is a fact that George W. Bush and others in his administration are traiotrs to their country.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Is there any evidence for it?

Well, since the U.S. government controlled the 9/11 investigation right from the start, obviously not. It's not like the U.S. government would engage in a massively treasonous, criminal act like manufacturing the 9/11 attacks and allowing them to happen and then all of sudden deciding to open up all the books and allow everyone to see what they've done.

I say the evidence is totally inconclusive either way. Speculation is all anybody's really got at this point.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

In other words, LIHOP if not MIHOP? (Let it happen on purpose vs make it happen on purpose)

How about a mixture of both? They made the attacks inevitable on the front end, while on the back end they simply allowed the attacks to occur and then stonewalled any chance at a thorough, credible investigation. We'll call it, MI-LIHOP.

I don't know. I spent hundreds of hours studying controlled demolition before going public with my first debate. Hundreds more before debating Richard Gage. Hundreds more preparing the YouTube Gage rebuttal videos. Hundreds more since, including the Millette dust study.

The falsehoods and outright lies I have encountered in 9/11 CD theories would make it impossible for me to approach your question with any real openness any more, since the evidence for a government conspiracy is provided by the same people who fed me the CD theories. Plus, years before all of this, I had the experience of disproving a supposed government conspiracy around the first Iraq War. I'm fed up with the whole thing and have decided against researching yet another set of claims in this area. I'm damaged goods, sorry.

Someone else will have to prove the truth of LIHOP claims. Or disprove them. What I took on was big enough, believe me.

I didn't ask you to prove anything, all I asked was for you to speculate on the possibility of such a theory. Would it have been beyond the U.S. government's capabilities to covertly fund Al-Qaeda? Would it have been beyond the U.S. government's capabilities to monitor Al-Qaeda and their operations over a period of years? Would it have been beyond the U.S. government's capabilities to learn of the 9/11 operational plans in advance and not do anything to interdict them?

 

[OCaptain]

Well, since the U.S. government controlled the 9/11 investigation right from the start, obviously not. It's not like the U.S. government would engage in a massively treasonous, criminal act like manufacturing the 9/11 attacks and allowing them to happen and then all of sudden deciding to open up all the books and allow everyone to see what they've done.

I say the evidence is totally inconclusive either way. Speculation is all anybody's really got at this point.

Thank you for admitting you have no evidence.

By the way, what do you think of Ali Soufan?

 

[beachnut]

Well, since the U.S. government controlled the 9/11 investigation right from the start, obviously not. It's not like the U.S. government would engage in a massively treasonous, criminal act like manufacturing the 9/11 attacks and allowing them to happen and then all of sudden deciding to open up all the books and allow everyone to see what they've done.

I say the evidence is totally inconclusive either way. Speculation is all anybody's really got at this point.

If you make a thread, 911 truth arrives and exposes why there can be no unity. 911 truth offers no evidence, ignores evidence, can't refute evidence and makes up lies.

Well, since the U.S. government controlled the 9/11 investigation right from the start, ...

Yep, that is how Nixon got away with Watergate! lol, you must be doing a parody of what McVeigh would say it he was a 911 truther. Good job.
Nixon, covered up Watergate, the truth was never known... oops, darn, there was a Pulitzer, because it was a cover-up, a real conspiracy. It would be funny, your parody of 911 truth, if not for the murdered people you ignore.

As usual, you are off topic. This is a big reason why their is no unity. Why are you off topic?

The government has to open up the books, we have all the original data. And if you don't have the data, you can ask for it.

Your speculation, saying the evidence is totally inclusive is a lie. Another reason there is no unity, 911 truth prefers to spread lies and make up lies like this post.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Thank you for admitting you have no evidence.

I have the same evidence you do. We both only see what the U.S. government wants us to see with regard to 9/11.

By the way, what do you think of Ali Soufan?

Not much, why?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Yep, that is how Nixon got away with Watergate! lol, you must be doing a parody of what McVeigh would say it he was a 911 truther. Good job.

What does Watergate have to do with 9/11? How are they even remotely comparable? Did Watergate have the same national security and geopolitical implications as 9/11?

Nixon, covered up Watergate, the truth was never known... oops, darn, there was a Pulitzer, because it was a cover-up, a real conspiracy. It would be funny, your parody of 911 truth, if not for the murdered people you ignore.

Is this really the crux of the government truther position? The Pulitzer? Ha, ha, ha...

The government has to open up the books, we have all the original data.

No, the government doesn't have to open up the books. That's what you fail to understand. The government can at any time invoke the state secrets privilege, no matter how guilty they are.

And if you don't have the data, you can ask for it.

Right, sure. I'm sure the government is just going to come out and admit they allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur so they could have an excuse to wage multiple decades of war and occupation throughout the Middle East.

Your speculation, saying the evidence is totally inclusive is a lie. Another reason there is no unity, 911 truth prefers to spread lies and make up lies like this post.

Of course the evidence is inconclusive, since it was primarily provided by the primary suspect in a criminal case. You have no way of knowing one way or another whether or not they provided you with 100% of the evidence, therefore the evidence is inconclusive.

 

[Jackanory]

Do you let Miles do your thinking for you? He is entitled to his opinions. If a person ends up looking at the information produced by Kevin Fenton, You see that there was deliberate lying and blocking of crutial information concerning Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi being known terrorists in the U.S.

When you combine that with all the foreknowledge and tracking of these guys for years and the deliberate lying and covering up of that also, there is an undeniable picture that emerges.

Richard Clarke doesn't want to believe it either. That is why he came up with the theory that maybe the CIA was trying to recruit Almidhar and Alhazmi.

Would the CIA be trying to recruit these guys for over two years???

What is the excuse for the other terrorist cells that were Identified by Anthony Shaffer during the Able Danger operation?

Whas Shaffer's unit blocked from the other terrorists because the CIA was trying to recruit them also????

How many more times do we have to read a post by a truther that answers his own delusions.

Do you give any of your own posts any thought whatsoever?

Do you even realise what it is you have just posted?

 

[OCaptain]

I have the same evidence you do. We both only see what the U.S. government wants us to see with regard to 9/11.



Not much, why?

Well, what is your specific opinion of him?

 

[OCaptain]

I have the same evidence you do. We both only see what the U.S. government wants us to see with regard to 9/11.



Not much, why?

The difference between us is that you assume that evidence which is plain to see CANNOT be true. That's where you take a hard turn to a place where the evidence does not lead.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Well, what is your specific opinion of him?

I don't really have one at the moment, why?

 

[Justin39640]

I don't really have one at the moment, why?

Try google and form one.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The difference between us is that you assume that evidence which is plain to see CANNOT be true. That's where you take a hard turn to a place where the evidence does not lead.

How do you know that all of the evidence that you "plainly see" is all the evidence that there really is?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Try google and form one.

What for, specifically? Why this guy and not one of the hundreds of others that make up the 9/11 story?

Is he the missing piece of the puzzle?

 

[shure]

By the way, what do you think of Ali Soufan?

Not much, why?

"FBI Agent Ali Soufan was in Yemen when the attacks of 9/11 happened. He was there working on gathering evidence to convict those involved in the USS Cole bombing. While most personal there immediately headed back to the U.S. he was told to stay in Yemen as there was a connection to what he was investigating and the attacks of 9/11. Remember - the following excerpt from his book is just after the 9-11 attacks have happened."

Here is how Ali Soufan found out he was being obstructed by the CIA......

The 9/11 attacks have just happened.......

From his book:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Banners-Inside-Against-al-Qaeda/dp/0393079422

Quote:

"Let's go to my office," the _____ said. He and I were alone, and he closed the door. He took out a file and silently handed it to me.

Inside were three pictures of al-Qaeda operatives taken in Kuala Lumpur, ___________________________ and photos were all dated January 2000 and had been provided to the CIA by the Malaysian ______________________ agency.

For about a minute I stared at the pictures and the report, not quite believing what I had in my hands. We had asked the CIA repeatedly during the USS Cole investigation if they knew anything about why Khallad had been in Maylaysia and if they recognized the number of the pay phone in Kuala Lumpur that we suspected he had used. Each time we had asked- in November 2000, April 2001, and July 2001 - they had said that they knew nothing.

But here in the file was a very different answer: they had in fact known since January 2000 that Khallad had met with other al-Qaeda operatives in Malaysia. They had pictures of them meeting and a detailed report of their comings and goings from Malaysian _________.

As for the phone number, ____________ listed it as being assigned to a pay phone that the al-Qaeda operatives were using to communicate with colleagues everywhere. The phone booth was across from a condominium owned by an al-Qaeda sympathizer in Malaysia, which was where all the al-Qaeda had stayed. Our deduction that Khallad had been using it was right.

______________________ given to the CIA by the Malaysians in January 2000. None of it had been passed to us, despite our specifically having asked about Khallad and the phone number and its relevance to the Cole investigation and to national security. I later found out that the three photos ______ that the ___ gave me were the three photos shown, with no explanation, to Steve and my Cole colleagues at the June 11, 2001, meeting in New York. The Cole team had asked about the photos-who the people were, why they were taken, and so on-but _____, the CIA official present, said nothing.

Also in the file ______ that Khallad had flown first class to Bangkok with Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. We soon would learn that they were listed as passengers on American Airlines flight 77, which had hit the Pentagon. Based upon the chronology in the report, it was clear that the day after Quso and Nibras had met Khallad and given him the $36,000, Mihdhar and Hazmi had bought first-class tickets to the United States. Was that $36,000 used to buy their tickets? And had the rest of the money been intended for their use in the United States? My gut told me yes.

My hands started shaking. I didn't know what to think. "They just sent these reports," the ___ said, seeing my reaction. I walked out of the room, sprinted down the corridor to the bathroom, and fell to the floor next to a stall. There I threw up.

I sat on the floor for a few minutes, although it felt like hours. What I had just seen went through my mind again and again. The same thought kept looping back: "If they had all this information since January 2000, why the hell didn't they pass it on?" My whole body was shaking.

I heard one of the SWAT agents asking "Ali, are you okay?" He had seen me run to the bathroom and followed me in .

"I am fine"

I got myself to the sink, washed out my mouth, and splashed some water on my face. I covered my face with a paper towel for a few moments. I was still trying to process the fact that the information I had requested about major al-Qaeda operatives, information the CIA had claimed they knew nothing about, had been in the agency's hands since January 2000.

The SWAT agent asked, "What's wrong, bud? What the hell did he tell you?

"They knew, they knew." pages 289-290


Excerpts from:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Banners-Inside-Against-al-Qaeda/dp/0393079422

Later..

Quote:

FBI special agent Andre Khoury had been stationed elsewhere in the Middle East when the planes hit the towers. He was reassigned to join us in Yemen, and after he arrived and saw the file, he wanted to confront the ___. I held Andre back.

"They knew! Why didn't they tell us?!" Andre said.

"You're right." I said. "and I'm just as angry. Believe me. But now is not the time to ask these questions. One day someone will ask the questions and find out, but right now we have to focus on the task at hand." page 290

 

[tsig]

How do you know that all of the evidence that you "plainly see" is all the evidence that there really is?

Because.

 

[DGM]

There are many reasons why the Bush administration censored those pages. None of those reasons are good or in the interest of the national security of the American people.

Would you mind sharing what some of these reason could be? I will do the same (after I rest, Sunday).

We know that the information censored in the joint intelligence inquiry was about the Saudi connection to the 9/11 plot.

I have no doubt that it did. This fact should be obvious.

We know that when a 9/11 commission investigator tried to follow up on the Saudi connection she was fired by Philip Zelikow who insured that the Saudi connection would be covered up.

I would call that speculation but, lets take this one step at a time.

We know that the 9/11 commision stated that there was no foreign government involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

To date I have not seen any evidence that this statement is false. I don't doubt some sectors of the "House of Saudi" might have supported the effort but, this is a different subject.

We know that is a LIE because we know the censored pages in the joint inquiry show foreign goverment involvement.

We do? Show how.

That foreign goverment is Saudi Arabia.

You can show the connection? (not just some faction of)

Therefore we can say for a fact that the Bush administration covered up the foreign involvement of Saudi Arabia in the events of 9/11.

I think you're jumping way ahead of yourself.

We can also say for a fact that the Bush administration then tried to place blame on Iraq and illegally attacked them instead.

I think your drawing conclusions on unsupported speculation. (we can get into this later)

Therefore it is a fact that George W. Bush and others in his administration are traiotrs to their country.

See above.

Can we agree to take this one issue at a time? You seem to like to jump ahead of yourself at times.

Can we explore possible reasons an administration (I didn't specify Bush because this hold true today) might want to withhold this information (whatever it might actually be)?

Sound good?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Because.

Because what? Because the government told you so? And because you believe the government told you the truth, right?

This is why I refer to your side as the "government truther" side.