Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11

[kellyb]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

 

[LSSBB]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

tl;dr

 

[kellyb]

I think we hashed through all this in the 9/11 subforum...

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

It's probably true that Saudi Arabians funded the attack.

 

[Crossbow]

Considering that just about all of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and
Considering the vast amount of wealth in Saudi Arabia, and
Considering all of the funding that Saudi Arabia provided to the Taliban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan,

Then it is quite likely that there were some people in Saudi Arabia who did provide some of the money that was needed to fund for the 9/11 attacks.

All of the above facts were clearly established many years ago.

 

[theprestige]

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[theprestige]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

Can you at least quote the passage where Graham says "Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11"?

In this context, "Saudi Arabia" connotes an official policy of the nation's sovereign government, to launch an attack on the United States.

Is that what Graham actually claims in the interview? Saying you'd have to quote half the interview suggests he doesn't actually claim that, and you'd have to combine a bunch of other stuff he did say, out of context, to create the impression that he claims what you put in your thread title.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Was it the same association of individuals that received the funding that later labeled themselves Taliban?

 

[Trebuchet]

This is from two years ago, BTW.

 

[kellyb]

It's probably true that Saudi Arabians funded the attack.

Which Saudi Arabians?

Sen Graham said in the interview:

The Saudis, thinking that they have a status of immunity from the United States, have continued to fund terrorist organizations and continued to train the next generation of terrorists in Wahhabist mosques and schools, feeling that there’s going to be no negative reaction from the United States.

 

[kellyb]

Can you at least quote the passage where Graham says "Saudi Arabia really might have funded 9/11"?

In this context, "Saudi Arabia" connotes an official policy of the nation's sovereign government, to launch an attack on the United States.

Is that what Graham actually claims in the interview? Saying you'd have to quote half the interview suggests he doesn't actually claim that, and you'd have to combine a bunch of other stuff he did say, out of context, to create the impression that he claims what you put in your thread title.

He's more explicit in part one:
https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt1

GRAHAM: The we, is the same group that’s been pushing this so hard, and it includes the families of the victims of 9/11, the families who for over a decade have been suing Saudi Arabia and various entities of the Kingdom, alleging that they were essentially co-conspirators in 9/11 and should be held to account. They also are investigative journalists, First Amendment lawyers, who have had a longtime interest in this case.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Which Saudi Arabians?

Sen Graham said in the interview:

That's apparently the subject of part of the 9/11 Commission Report that was redacted, and Graham has read that.

 

[LSSBB]

Is the consensus that Senator Graham is right?

The consensus is nobody seems to car, IMO.

Here's a thread. 2016. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=297608

 

[kellyb]

That's apparently the subject of part of the 9/11 Commission Report that was redacted, and Graham has read that.

Yeah, from a different interview:

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0314ciafeinstein

As you know, there is another, similar situation involving our report of the 9/11, where there was a chapter of 28 pages which largely deals with the question of who financed 9/11. That chapter has been censored now for more than 12 years, and there is no evidence that there is any likelihood that it’s going to be made available to the American people in the near future.

I think that’s an outrage. There’s nothing in that report that involves today’s national security. There is a lot in that report which might help explain how did 9/11—how was it allowed and capable of actually occurring. And that information should be available to the American people.

JAY: Right. And Senator Graham can’t say what’s in those 28 pages, ’cause he’s bound by his secrecy oaths. But I didn’t sign any of those oaths, and I’ve actually read the newspapers, and I do know what’s in those 28 pages, ’cause there were some reports in The L.A. Times and The New York Times interviewing people who saw those redacted 28 pages, and apparently in those 28 pages were the actual names of members of the Saudi government who were involved and facilitating and helping finance the 9/11 attacks. But as I said, Senator Graham’s not allowed to say what’s in those things, ’cause he was—those pages were redacted under his watch. So at any—.

GRAHAM: Well, I appreciate your awareness of and alerting your audience to the circumstances under which I am discussing this matter.

Also:

https://therealnews.com/stories/graham1125raipt3

JAY: And your main point is that these 19 guys can’t do this without a support network, and you have evidence the support network was at least in part linked to the Saudi government.

GRAHAM: Yeah. And I might say, I have personally talked to the other cochair of the Congressional Joint Inquiry, a man who was a very distinguished congressman and, later, director of the CIA, I have talked to the two chairs of the citizens’ 9/11 Commission, asking them, what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support? All three of them used almost the same word, implausible, that it is implausible that that could have been the case. Yet that has now become the conventional wisdom to the aggressive exclusion of other alternatives.

 

[dudalb]

There is a difference between Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabians.
That A lot of the funding for Al Qaida came from individual Saudi Arabians has been established for a long time.
But that the funding for Al Qaida came from the Saudi government remains very much unproven.

 

[theprestige]

Was it the same association of individuals that received the funding that later labeled themselves Taliban?

Some of the mujahideen later formed/joined the Taliban, if that's what you mean.

But "the US funded the Taliban" is usually CT shorthand for "the US funded the very same organization that had destruction of the US as an explicit goal". Which is not true at all. Equivocating on the nature, origin, and evolution of insurgent groups in Afghanistan over the decades is basically a dodge to support the CT claim. Saying that Saudi Arabia funded the Taliban (because they funded the anti-Soviet mujahideen) is just a variation of that same CT claim.

So if you're not making the CT claim, it might make sense to you to be very clear about how you're categorizing and grouping Afghani insurgent factions, and why. Instead of asking ambiguous and complex questions, try making concrete statements about what you think and why you think it.

 

[Horatius]

what do you think were the prospects of these 19 people being able to plan, practice, and execute the complicated plot that was 9/11 without any external support?

This is one of those just-vague-enough questions they can use to get just-vague-enough answers to let them allude to all sorts of alleged subterfuges.

Like the funding, there's actually no doubt that the 19 guys who carried out the act had "a support network". We actually know who some of them are, and have killed quite a few, and imprisoned at least one. I'm sure there were others involved that we haven't found yet, and my never find.

But it's a leap to go from "They had a network" to "They had a network tied to the Saudi government".

Sure, it's possible that they did, but you can't actually conclude that from what has been said here, in response to this vague question.

 

[kellyb]

But that the funding for Al Qaida came from the Saudi government remains very much unproven.

I'm not so sure about that:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ham/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-created-al-qaida/

"We know that Saudi Arabia started al-Qaida."
— Bob Graham on Sunday, April 24th, 2016 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

But there was so much Saudi-based support from individual Saudis and organizations that directed money from the Saudi government that the statement should be considered true, Gartenstein-Ross said, even if Graham's statement "is a bit under-nuanced."

"He's talking about Saudi financiers. He's not claiming the state itself is a major supporter for al-Qaeda," he said. "Government-sponsored charities were doing it, and the government had to be aware it was going on."

 

[kellyb]

This is one of those just-vague-enough questions they can use to get just-vague-enough answers to let them allude to all sorts of alleged subterfuges.

Like the funding, there's actually no doubt that the 19 guys who carried out the act had "a support network". We actually know who some of them are, and have killed quite a few, and imprisoned at least one. I'm sure there were others involved that we haven't found yet, and my never find.

But it's a leap to go from "They had a network" to "They had a network tied to the Saudi government".

Sure, it's possible that they did, but you can't actually conclude that from what has been said here, in response to this vague question.

In the Meet the Press interview he said:

"To me, the most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?" Graham said. "I think it's implausible to think that people who couldn't speak English, had never been in the United States before, (and) as a group were not well-educated could have done that. So who was the most likely entity to have provided them that support? And I think all the evidence points to Saudi Arabia. We know that Saudi Arabia started al-Qaida. It was a creation of Saudi Arabia."

 

[Horatius]

Then let him provide that evidence. We've seen the evidence of their direct support from al-Queda, so he should put up or shut up, already.

 

[Horatius]

And also, "very sophisticated plot"? "people who couldn't speak English"? Those again are almost straight out of the 9/11 truther handbook.

The only difficult part of the plan was getting pilots who could fly the planes well enough to hit the buildings, and we know exactly how they did that. We've seen interviews with the people who ran the schools they attended, and literally all they had to do was sign up, pay the tuition, and attend the classes. The rest of it was just buying 19 tickets on four different flights, which literally any travel agent could have done.

And people who don't speak English well get by in the US every damn day, some of them doing jobs far more complicated than getting a taxi to the airport, and getting on a plane. Heck, the US might just be the easiest place in the world for them to do that. I'd be surprised if an airport in Japan had someone on staff who could speak Arabic, but the US? With the number of first and second generation immigrants they have, it might be more surprising if the airport didn't have someone around who could speak Arabic if needed.

All they really needed was the money to do it. The rest of their "support" could have been handled by just a few people who knew English a bit better, at most. They succeeded not because of some "sophisticated" James-Bondian "network", they succeeded because they identified a weakness in our security that was easy to exploit.

And that's what the people in charge really don't want to admit. They got outplayed, pure and simple.

 

[kellyb]

Then let him provide that evidence. We've seen the evidence of their direct support from al-Queda, so he should put up or shut up, already.

I think it's classified:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/28-pages-saudi-prince-bandar-9-11/index.html

Graham now wants the FBI and CIA documents pertaining to the questions raised in the 28 pages to be released as well.
"It's going to now be the task to find out, did the ... (9/11) commission, did the FBI, did the CIA, or any other entity of the United States government in fact do" a comprehensive inquiry into the Bandar connection?" Graham asked. "If so, what did they conclude in their further investigation?"

 

[kellyb]

And that's what the people in charge really don't want to admit. They got outplayed, pure and simple.

I think if everyone knew right off the bat that it was funded by SA government money, there would have been calls to invade SA, not Iraq.

 

[Venom]

This is an amazing interview with Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and cochair of the bipartisan joint congressional inquiry into intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

There's a transcript under the video, and I'd quote the most relevant parts, but I'd have to quote half of the interview.

https://therealnews.com/stories/bgraham0907pt2

Geopolitics is some wild stuff.

Saudi Arabia? The government or Saudi Arabian citizens? Or people tangentially related to the government?

This often gets spun by the media as Saudi Arabia may have funded the operation! Why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan/Iraq.

Just endless conflation of the facts.

 

[kellyb]

Saudi Arabia? The government or Saudi Arabian citizens? Or people tangentially related to the government?

This often gets spun by the media as Saudi Arabia may have funded the operation! Why aren't we attacking Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan/Iraq.

Just endless conflation of the facts.

The funding came from the government:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...ham/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-created-al-qaida/

But there was so much Saudi-based support from individual Saudis and organizations that directed money from the Saudi government that the statement should be considered true, Gartenstein-Ross said, even if Graham's statement "is a bit under-nuanced."

"He's talking about Saudi financiers. He's not claiming the state itself is a major supporter for al-Qaeda," he said. "Government-sponsored charities were doing it, and the government had to be aware it was going on."

"It's clear you had government money that went through these charities," he said. "And while you could talk about lack of oversight for these charities, which used to be the line the government used, mere lack of oversight doesn't fully explain the government's position."

The government of SA apparently funds these Islamic radicals because they hate the West, not the monarchy. They're worried about an Iranian revolution type scenario.

 

[Elagabalus]

This thread needs to be moved to the Conspiracy section.

 

[kellyb]

This thread needs to be moved to the Conspiracy section.

No. The CT threads involve stupid **** like bombs in the towers, holographic planes, and a missile hitting the Pentagon.

This is more of an emerging consensus on the funding of the attack.

 

[Elagabalus]

Then the 9/11 subforum.

 

[kellyb]

Then the 9/11 subforum.

It's part of the CT forum. It's where you talking about the holographic planes and bombs in the towers.

 

[Whip]

Then the 9/11 subforum.

(of the conspiracy section)

 

[dudalb]

I am afraid the OP has taking the first steps on the road that leads to Trutherdom...not a good road to be on.

 

[kellyb]

I am afraid the OP has taking the first steps on the road that leads to Trutherdom...not a good road to be on.

No, there is no direct line from "SA was the entity funding the charities which were/are funding al-Qaida" to the holographic planes.

Or, do you think members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are on the road to Trutherdom?

 

[Elagabalus]

It's part of the CT forum. It's where you talking about the holographic planes and bombs in the towers.

Yes!



Don't bother responding I've placed this thread on ignore. Just to be clear, I have not declared the OP to be ignore (which would be rude and never done) this thread is on ignore. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Elagabalus]

No, there is no direct line from "SA was the entity funding the charities which were/are funding al-Qaida" to the holographic planes.

Or, do you think members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are on the road to Trutherdom?

Saudi Arabia were funding Holographic planes?! The Fiends!!

 

[carlitos]

No, there is no direct line from "SA was the entity funding the charities which were/are funding al-Qaida" to the holographic planes.

Or, do you think members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are on the road to Trutherdom?

You literally sound like half the truthers in the 9/11 truther section over the past 10 years. Do a forum search for a guy named "palo alto" and you'll find lots of reading along these lines.

 

[kellyb]

You literally sound like half the truthers in the 9/11 truther section over the past 10 years. Do a forum search for a guy named "palo alto" and you'll find lots of reading along these lines.

So, being a truther is claiming SA funded al-Qaida? No bombs in the towers or a missile hitting the pentagon?

 

[kellyb]

There was overwhelming bi-partisan support for this bill a couple of years ago:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...errorism-act/D004FD62B4003906CF4CC54B4E028224

On September 28, 2016, Congress enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), overriding a presidential veto for the first and only time during Obama's presidency. The Act allows Americans to sue foreign states for playing a role in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. While JASTA was written in general terms, it was drafted specifically to allow families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for its suspected role in those attacks. The Act received widespread bipartisan support despite the administration's consistent stance that the Act would harm U.S. economic, diplomatic, and national security interests.

 

[Elagabalus]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305780

 

[theprestige]

So, being a truther is claiming SA funded al-Qaida? No bombs in the towers or a missile hitting the pentagon?

Trutherism encompasses a wide range of counterfactual, incoherent, or otherwise fringe claims about what "really" happened on 9/11. It includes exotic claims like space beams and holo-planes. It also includes more mundane claims like MIHOP and LIHOP.

"Saudi Arabia funded the attacks" is a variant of MIHOP, with some amount of LIHOP depending on what the theory has to say about what the US knew and when the US knew it.