• 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.

The "28 pages" thread

beachnut said:
Really? I met some Saudis, they were not nasty. I worked with Saudis, they were not nasty and their kids play like other kids around the world. Is this how UBL justified killing thousands on 9/11 - were were a nasty bunch? Evil, etc?

Why so much political BS, over the top opinion based BS? What is your next step since you hate Saudi Arabia?

When the 28 pages about preliminary intel assessments is released, we will have more opinions, and will the opinions be in the 28 pages, or about the 28 pages.

The Saudis are kind of "nasty", if you are a terrorist they kill you, the next day. Rapid justice ruins your appeal process...
Click to expand...

Not ALL Saudis... just the types who torture and enforce their religious laws and so on...hypocrites..
 
I'm halfway through. It goes a little deeper than I thought.

If I'm continuing with the theory that the CIA was involved in trying to recruit al-mihdhar and al-hazmi, then it would seem it wasn't only those two who played them, but also the Saudi intelligence officers the CIA were using to try and facilitate it. ****.
 
zorro99 said:
Was there anything important in the 28 pages?
Click to expand...

Looks like the FBI's San Diego office was onto Bassnan, even drafting a memo and sending it up the chain, but it fell on deaf ears in D.C.

There is a lot of stuff that we already suspected:

Saudi Intelligence may have had ties to a radical mosque in Culver City, CA, that helped 2 of the 911 hijackers.

Prince Bandar's name and checkbook pops up a couple of times.

Bandar's wife "donating" money to suspicious groups.

Bassnan was a known (to the FBI) supporter of bin Laden as far back at 1993.

Abu Zubaida had the phone numbers to a Saudi front company and a Saudi diplomat in D.C.

A phone number found in a bin Laden Pakistani safehouse traced back to a Virginia home that was indirectly linked to Bandar via a couple who "does work for him".

I need to take a week to digest this but it looks like the FBI dropped a lot more balls than the CIA did, mostly from resistance and negligence at the senior management levels.

There is a lot of solid information here, but there is a lot of tenuous linkage too.

The key point : Al Qaeda operatives and leadership had links to influential Saudis, and some of these Saudis directly assisted the 911 hijackers. This means that Al Qaeda hijacked for passenger jets and crashed them into the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville.
 
Axxman300 said:
The key point : Al Qaeda operatives and leadership had links to influential Saudis, and some of these Saudis directly assisted the 911 hijackers. This means that Al Qaeda hijacked for passenger jets and crashed them into the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that those are the key points from the perspective of 9/11 CT discussion/concerns.

IMO the two bottom line issues from a CT perspective are:
1) Four aircraft were hijacked and used to cause some problems.
The status is effectively unchanged by 28 pages. We already knew that, there has never been a substantiated counter claim to any of those four OR the related issues with WTC7. There may be additional supporting evidence in the 28 pages but it is redundant for any genuine discussion of 9/11 CTs - EXCEPT that it gives further grounds for truther debating trickery. Whoopee. The case is effectively closed in the arena of those technical claims and nothing in the 28 pages suggest differently. Ignore resulting truther noise until they come up with something substantial. No CD at WTC. It was that plane at Pentagon and no shoot down at Shanksville.

2) There was under performance in political and organisational management of 9/11
- pre, during and post the events.
This one is not so clear cut at this stage. I'm personally not convinced that the concerns in the political and management arena have been adequately resolved. However any remnant legitimate issues are minor details. The "big questions" have already been asked and and answered in the form they are usually presented. i.e. "MIHOP" and "LIHOP" at the level of the whole affair. There is IMO little doubt that bits of LIHOOI at the detail level remain unanswered. Whether there is any legitimate "rule of law" under the Constitution need for further remedial action is a matter for US community - not AU citizens posting on a forum.

Plus it is not my area of expertise or interest so not an area I can or wish to contribute to. Bottom lines still seem to be (i) "there may be some details assisted by 28 pages" AND (ii) the political question "was protection of international relations a valid reason for redacting those pages"?

I'll predict that the plot gets well and truly confused on that second issue. Because reality is that the decision was taken at the time and by legitimate due process at that time. And what can be achieved by review in 20/20 hindsight? Now?

My own AU cultural biases will no doubt lad me to conclusions which differ from many US citizens. So:

:duck:


:runaway.
 
Last edited:
In a perfect world, these 28 Pages should lead to a serious reevaluation of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and just how much influence we allow them within our government in the future.

...but I'm not holding my breath.

A wise move would be to launch a full investigation into the mosques named in this report going back to 1993 (if possible) to map where their finances come from, and trace foreign investment to their sources.

...but I'm not holding my breath for this one either.

A smart move would be to task the CIA, NSA, and FBI with identifying, and tracking (i.e. eavesdropping, reading text and email) Saudi Intelligence agents in this country and others. More importantly, when we do stumble across official Saudi contact numbers in terrorist locations that we raid down range there should be a more serious response.

...No way I'm holding my breath here either.

We could have a serious look at how the marriage of domestic petroleum companies and Saudi Arab provides borderline illegal influence within the US Government.

...that will never happen.

They dumped this into the daylight on a Friday knowing that nobody will remember it happened on Monday.

[I have some personal opinions about why they sat on this section of the report, but none of them are intelligent]:thumbsup:
 
:thumbsup:
My thoughts are more or less along the same line - hence my boundary constraints:
1) Has to be an overall judgement of US policy balancing peace at home with overseas relationships. And those issues will always "not please everyone" including those who benefit from a valid "best overall" choice whilst still being free to accept the befits AND simultaneously bitch about it knowing that their benefits are safe. Suits many to have the "bet both ways". Not my scene.

2) I'll leave the US policy issues for US folk to debate - my personal and AU culture biased perceptions would only confuse discussion which is bound to be confused even without my input. :blush:

3) And with regard for the realities of "due process" of "rule of law" under a Constitution. - the one the truthers don't seem to comprehend.


I fully agree your choice for uninterrupted breathing.

And the "Friday afternoon ploy" is not US specific.

My assessment is that it will have less effect in US than here in AU if it was an AU controversial decision.

Expressed in words to the effect of: "faeces happens - let's get on with life" - the word I would use is spelled **** in US forum style English ;)
 
Last edited:
Yep, the Truth Movement sure did a good job helping to hide the Saudi 9/11 trail. By blaming everyone except the Saudis and the terrorists the Saudis supported (the Mossad, the NWO, the U.S. military, Wall Street insiders, the Mafia, the FDNY, the CIA, a "rogue faction" in the U.S. Government, PNAC, the Bush administration, Silverstein, Jews in general, NIST, etc. etc.) they made it nearly impossible to even discuss the issue, let alone be taken seriously by anyone. Even though the broad outlines (just not all the details in the released pages) were already well known.
 
Myriad said:
Yep, the Truth Movement sure did a good job helping to hide the Saudi 9/11 trail. By blaming everyone except the Saudis and the terrorists the Saudis supported (the Mossad, the NWO, the U.S. military, Wall Street insiders, the Mafia, the FDNY, the CIA, a "rogue faction" in the U.S. Government, PNAC, the Bush administration, Silverstein, Jews in general, NIST, etc. etc.) they made it nearly impossible to even discuss the issue, let alone be taken seriously by anyone. Even though the broad outlines (just not all the details in the released pages) were already well known.
Click to expand...


:clap:
 
Myriad said:
Yep, the Truth Movement sure did a good job helping to hide the Saudi 9/11 trail. By blaming everyone except the Saudis and the terrorists the Saudis supported (the Mossad, the NWO, the U.S. military, Wall Street insiders, the Mafia, the FDNY, the CIA, a "rogue faction" in the U.S. Government, PNAC, the Bush administration, Silverstein, Jews in general, NIST, etc. etc.) they made it nearly impossible to even discuss the issue, let alone be taken seriously by anyone. Even though the broad outlines (just not all the details in the released pages) were already well known.
Click to expand...

If I were still a CT-loon I'd swear 9-11 Truth was a government plot to silence real discussion.:thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom