• 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.

Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now

shure

Thinker
S
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
200
Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation Now
Bob Graham and Sharon Premoli, 09/11/2012

bob_graham.jpg


The passage of time since September 11, 2001, has not diminished the distrust many of us feel surrounding the official story of how 9/11 happened and, more specifically, who financed and supported it. After eleven years, the time has come for the families of the victims, the survivors and all Americans to get the whole story behind 9/11.

Yet the story of who may have facilitated the 19 hijackers and the infrastructure that supported the attacks -- a crucial element of the narrative -- has not been told. The pieces we do have underscore how much more remains unknown.

Did the hijackers execute the plot alone, or did they have the support of forces other than the known leaders of al-Qaeda -- a network even -- that provided funds, assistance, and cover?

It is not merely a question of the need to complete the historical record. It is a matter of national security today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-graham/911-saudi-arabia_b_1868863.html



more:
http://www.browardbulldog.org/tag/graham/


.
 
Quote:
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.” -Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham who led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks

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

And a member of the 9-11 commission....

Edited by LashL: 
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy & paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short passage and provide a link to the source.



:boxedin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shaffer-graham.JPG


Quoting Shaffer: "John - there needs to be a qualified, non-partisan (as opposed to bipartisan as the 9/11 Commission was) with a clean slate, no preconceived notions, and authority to look at anything and everything they want and see where the facts and evidence goes."


:cool:
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Shure,

This article just appeared on msn.com today:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...administration-got-many-pre-911-warnings?lite

Everyone knows me as the guy who debated Richard Gage and doesn't believe in controlled demolition on 9/11. Sometimes I wish I had investigated the stuff in this article more; I won't now because I am too burned out but man this stuff really gets my goat.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

It really gets my goat too. Unfortunately, these serious issues have been overshadowed by all the stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories since the beginning. I fell victim to a lot of the nonsense over the years, but I am glad there are people like you who made the effort to expose the lies of the so called "truth" movement.

Thank you very much for exposing Jones, Gage, Ryan, etc... for the frauds that they are.

Maybe in another eleven years the majority of truthers will start to figure it out too ;)

These real issues need to be brought to light. Hopefully someday soon they will.

It is a matter of national security today as Bob Graham stated.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for not reading the countless links.

Al Qaeda have connections all over the world, and especially through the Green Crescent.

What makes this a Saudi Government financing of 9/11, rather than an Al Qaeda financing of 9/11?
 
Because the Saudi Govt want to attack their biggest ally but do it in secret but not too secret that some guy on the Internet could figure it all out.

You know, the usual stuff.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Forgive me for not reading the countless links.

Al Qaeda have connections all over the world, and especially through the Green Crescent.

What makes this a Saudi Government financing of 9/11, rather than an Al Qaeda financing of 9/11?
Click to expand...

There aren't that many links and it's not hard to get to the meat, if you're genuinely curious, but here's some of it:

In July of this year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security, issued a 330-page report faulting banking giant HSBC for ignoring the ties to terrorist financing of Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi Arabia's largest private bank. The report states that after the 9/11 attacks, "evidence began to emerge that Al Rajhi Bank and some of its owners had links to organizations associated with financing terrorism, including that one of the bank's founders was an early financial benefactor of al Qaeda." This individual was identified in the report as being part of Osama bin-Laden's "Golden Chain" of al-Qaeda financiers.
Click to expand...

Most damning is the fact that links between Saudi financiers and AQ were covered up by the US gov't.
 
Jesus Red I wish you'd settle on either MIHOP or LIHOP. It would make the debate simpler.
 
twinstead said:
Jesus Red I wish you'd settle on either MIHOP or LIHOP. It would make the debate simpler.
Click to expand...

I've said it before on this forum, if there was a sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence, I'd give up on MIHOP immediately. It's sort of the Al Capone strategy of convicting the mob boss on tax evasion as opposed to the slew of obvious other crimes.
 
RedIbis said:
I've said it before on this forum, if there was a sincere effort to hold those accountable for negligence, I'd give up on MIHOP immediately. It's sort of the Al Capone strategy of convicting the mob boss on tax evasion as opposed to the slew of obvious other crimes.
Click to expand...

Lets take a gander at your credibility.

Does Larry Silverstein qualify as one of those accountable for negligence?
 
It is a constant source of disappointment that this forum reacts so reflexively, automatically, i.e. without applying critical thinking, to every proposal made by any perceived "truther". (And yes, I fell victim to the same sort of behaviour before)


This Saudi connection thingy is currentle the sanest, most reasonable and
plausible criticism and change proposal of the currently accepted version of 9/11 history.

Is there anybody on this forum who actually believes nothing new will ever be found out?
Is there anybody on this forum who actually believes there is no secret that, if it we came to knew it, would change our perception of the events and their political context?
Then I want that person to step up and say it out loud: "Yes, I think we know everything already".
Else, I want to hear reasons why you dismiss that stuff so easily!



I also suggest that poster address the OP first, and NOT any trolling that may have been sneaked in further down. Please be respectful to the OP!
 
I fully expect that there is more to it than we know. My problem is with truthers using what could be an honest desire to find out those things to somehow try to prove that 9-11 was an inside job.
 
twinstead said:
I fully expect that there is more to it than we know. My problem is with truthers using what could be an honest desire to find out those things to somehow try to prove that 9-11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...

My problem would be using Twoofies as an excuse to avoid asking important and uncomfortable questions and exhibiting true skepticism, as Oystein has commendably done above.
 
Said it before and I'll say it again:

This is a reasonable line of inquiry.

HOWEVER, the amount of financing involved here is pathetic. I could have bankrolled the 9/11 attacks. Transactions on this scale are difficult to trace, and one must not read too much into coincidences.

There is a fine line between "financed by the Saudi government" and "financed by a lone crank within the Saudi government," or even "financed by a family member of someone in the Saudi government." This information is likely to be subjective. I gravely doubt that any "smoking gun" will ever be found, for there is no reason to expect it to exist in the first place. Actually writing down policy documents and creating dedicated charge numbers for the 9/11 operation would be the work of profoundly incompetent conspirators.

But, again, I have no problem with this line of investigation, and I would like to see more of the background information released. There is rich fodder here for private investigative journalism and they may indeed come up with something.

The USA has many enemies in West Asia. This is not news.
 
Now, my thinking on the subject:

A) At first glance, it seems plausible, almost inevitable, that on some level AQ enjoyed Saudi support before 9/11 (and possibly for a while after). There basic facts speak for it: OBL is a Saudi, 15 of the hijackers were Saudis, the Saudi monarchy nepotic dictatorship is founded on some extreme, archaic version of Islam - much like AQ is. The Saudis (the Royal clique, the power elite, probably a majority of its people) are not our friends - they are only the friends of our money (and we are not their friends, we are only friends of their oil). We don't share values, we don't share goals, we don't share any political or social culture. The only thing we share is the desire to put their oil to the best use.

Both sides have entered into a network of compromises to keep the oil flowing while mainting an acceptable level of safety. But those dealings are, of becessity, dirty and naughty and go against the grain of our conscience.



With that in mind, the question is less "do we have a problem with the Saudis?" (the obvious answer being "a problem?? Plenty!!") but rather "How do we most efficiently deal with the huge problems we have with the Saudis?". Politics has decided long ago that the best way to deal with the delicate problems we have with them is on a level away from public discourse, democratic decisions and ethical considerations, and more on a totally macchiavellian game plan: Show them your weapons, and let them know you will use them; figure out the limits of what you can take from the other side, and fight hard to protect it.



So every once in a while, the USA will violate those limits, perhaps to test how weak the other side is, and the Saudis will retaliate in measured force the way they can.
Or the other way round.



Here's what I believe: Some of the more radical elements within the Saudi plutocracy were given a window of opportunity to test those limits (perhaps even they didn't quite realize the severity). In that context, 9/11 was an almost "accidental" outlier in the game of mutual provocations.
I think some on the US side - including the top-echelon of the government and the secret services, figured out very quickly where and who the problems were, and their strategy to cut out those problems was to tell the Saudis "look, we got really bad weapons. Really really bad. You don't want to know how bad! Now some of you bad guys cooperate with us and eliminate the other bad guys, or else...". And their chosen bad guys got rewarded for cooperation.
And I think the Saudis, forced by secret American pressure, have cleaned house since.
Of course, as with any house, you can clean it, but after a while it gets dirty again.



Back to the question of investigation and uncovering all that dirt: Conventional state wisdom holds that you can't deal with the bad guys fairly and openly without putting yourself at a startegic disadvantage. That's why some things are covert and secret and remain that way.

I certainly don't feel easy with that stance, but I can't say it is entirely wrong. And I'd hesitate to proclaim that, when doing the sums, we'd be better of prosecuting all those Saudis and those US agents involved in those dirty deeds.



And urrr yes, I realize I speak from my gut and provide no sources ;)
 
RedIbis said:
My problem would be using Twoofies as an excuse to avoid asking important and uncomfortable questions and exhibiting true skepticism, as Oystein has commendably done above.
Click to expand...

You seem to be appealing to the better angels of our character, when we have been inundated for years with utterly spurious claims.

Like that Larry Silverstein “made out like a bandit” and “received a windfall.” That is a GREAT example.

“oh you guys are focusing on the incredibly stupid stuff we’ve said over the years. You are very naughty.”

I’d be more impressed if the people saying those things would man the hell up, and admit their mistakes.
 
Oystein said:
It is a constant source of disappointment that this forum reacts so reflexively, automatically, i.e. without applying critical thinking, to every proposal made by any perceived "truther". (And yes, I fell victim to the same sort of behaviour before)


This Saudi connection thingy is currentle the sanest, most reasonable and
plausible criticism and change proposal of the currently accepted version of 9/11 history.

Is there anybody on this forum who actually believes nothing new will ever be found out?
Is there anybody on this forum who actually believes there is no secret that, if it we came to knew it, would change our perception of the events and their political context?
Then I want that person to step up and say it out loud: "Yes, I think we know everything already".
Else, I want to hear reasons why you dismiss that stuff so easily!
Click to expand...


I said this about various shortcomings of the government's investigations, four years ago. Nothing has really changed since then.

Myriad said:
And note that there's more involved here than just wasted effort on the truthers' part. By focusing on unjustified illogical "inside job" accusations, the truth movement has made it difficult if not impossible for any politician to speak out publicly against the kind of abuses and failures that the OP describes, without being embarrassingly associated with an obnoxious lunatic fringe. This is known as providing political cover.
Click to expand...


Myriad said:
The Truth Movement has discouraged any further official inquiry, by associating any call for such inquiry with the agenda of an irrational lunatic fringe that absolves terrorists of mass murder. This makes it political suicide for any U.S. politician who has (or aspires to) any public stature to support any further inquiry. That's the reality that you [Truthers] have helped to create.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's a disappointing state of affairs, as it was four years ago and six years ago and eight years ago. But I'm not clear on why anyone should be whining to us about it now.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom