Saudi Officials Supported 9/11 Terrorists

Discussion in '9/11' started by longknife, May 13, 2016.

  1. Giggs

    Giggs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read some of the comments here . Reading these influenced me to register . How many of you have actually read the 9-11 report ? How many of you have read the recently released File 17? I doubt many of you have read either . There is no way to deny official Saudi involvement based on what is these reports . Details , people . Read the reports and get into the details . They did it . I am satisfied .
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately there's nothing trustworthy or even complete about any of the official reports. The original narrative claims only Al Qaeda was responsible and the source of the funding was unimportant and they classified the 28 pages for over a decade. Now the new narrative claims the Saudi royal family allegedly funded the alleged hijackers. There are over 80,000 pages of documents from the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation that purportedly have to do with the Saudi financing that are still classified and the 9/11 Commission claims a large portion of the documents/evidence that allegedly have to do with their investigation are also classified. The truth never changes, lies change all the time. If you're satisfied with the pathological lying and obvious coverups, then there's nothing anyone can tell you that will change your mind.
     
  3. Giggs

    Giggs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All you have to do is read the report . Have you done so ? I doubt it . The report goes into intricate details . I like details . I detest generalities . At an absolute minimum there was active and official support for Mindhar and Al Hamzi . You would have to be an absolute idiot not to draw that conclusion if you would just take the time to read section 7 of the 9-11 report and also File 17. The evidence is comprehensive . Why these bastards would do that is beyond me . There was a clear mix of Al Queda, the Saudi government , Saudi charities , Saudi companies and other Saudi NGO's. Plenty of overlapping and plenty of money laundering . I have read the report . I doubt more than 1 percent of the American people have even looked at it let alone read it. If you have not read it then you have no basis for making an intelligent comment .
     
  4. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're probably right about that--most folks have not read the actual report. I have read only portions of it, but not the whole thing. No doubt in my mind that Saudi were involved at least in the planning, if not some part of the execution.

    After reading parts of the report, in August 2004 Senator Mark Dayton said NORAD had lied, after he compared the time lines for various events as given by NORAD.

    The closer one looks, the more the official story falls apart.
     
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    68,539
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wahhabis don't want another caliphate because the last one was a real dud that plunged the Arabian Peninsula into a period of poverty and illiteracy.. In fact the Arab states are so diverse in their needs and aspirations that most do not want another caliphate. The Calipha has had NO religious authority since 800 AD.

    The hi-jackers were following the teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al Banna which have been outlawed since King Faisal... and were mostly members of the Deobandi which was a reaction to British colonialism.

    The author of your piece knows almost nothing about Islam, history or Saudi Arabia.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you didn't understand my post. I read the report and many other things about the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST reports. I don't care how much "detail" is in all these reports, none of it is reliable or credible. They are a mix of of fact, fiction and especially omission. I started a thread that rips apart the NIST reports using NIST's own published contradictory words in intricate detail.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    Their "detail" sounds highly technical and professional but in all those words, one glaring key is in a footnote:

    "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." - NCSTAR 1 page xxxvii, PDF page 39.

    http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

    In other words, it's NIST's admission, using their own words, that they never investigated the collapse of the twin towers despite their own published objective:

    "The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:

    why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;"

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2006/09/nists-world-trade-center-investigation

    About 25% of the supporting footnotes of the 9/11 Commission Report are taken from 3rd party accounts of "confessions" by detainees who were renditioned and tortured mercilessly. One of these key to the report came from a "confession" signed by a detainee who wasn't allowed to read what he signed. And never mind what is missing from these reports. You want to take what these reports say at face value? It's ok with me, you are just like millions of others who bought it and are satisfied. For me these reports are nothing more than blatant propaganda designed for a permanent war agenda.

    Perhaps when I get the inclination, I'll start a thread on the 9/11 Commission and its report. In the meantime, I already posted one major issue with it (see post #1):

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/487385-9-11-official-conspiracy-theory-questions.html

    “The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” - John F. Kennedy

    Having said all that, it's quite possible the Saudis had a hand in 9/11 but that doesn't make anything in any official 9/11 report reliable or credible.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This info has been on the internet for years.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060

    Anyone who still says that hijackers did it is either a patriotic American in denial, or is a government sophist*.


    *
    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
    https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
     
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm not in a position to be able to know who the exact people were or if any other countries such as Israel were involved but I'm in a position to know that it wasn't done by hijackers as the crushing proof is on the internet.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060

    There had to have been people in the US government involved. We can only speculate about who was influencing and aiding them.

    Tell us whether you believe hijackers did it.
     
  10. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yes, hijackers absolutely did it ... and? ...
     
  11. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    68,539
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Saudis pulled OBL's citizenship and declared AQ a terrorist organization in 1994.. so 9-11 was in part revenge to give the attack a Saudi face and turn Americans against KSA.

    Sadly, we have many conspiracy theorist who still think the Saudis did it or the Bush administration did it.
     
  12. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were many players in the 911 playbook, some major some minor. It appears the Saudi role was very minor--approving visas and providing patsy hijackers and their papers.

    The Bush and Israeli players were major.
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're playing dumb about the proof that hijackers didn't do it (see info in above link).

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------
    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
    ------------------------------------

    You're not fooling any viewers who take the time to look at it.
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you just described yourself and other troofers perfectly ...
     
  15. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,882
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113


    What list of nonsense...

    Simple question: What hits the Pentagon?
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does it really matter what hit it?

    The mission was accomplished is all that matters.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't know how many times I've addressed this on this forum. Here are some of the links.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=13&p=1066776319#post1066776319
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780017#post1066780017
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780070#post1066780070
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&p=1066780237#post1066780237
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066780302#post1066780302
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=482175&page=2&p=1066782729#post1066782729


    Whatever happened there, a 757 didn't hit it. A smaller craft may have hit it, or there may have been planted explosives.

    Remember that your playing dumb about this mountain of proof doesn't keep the viewers from looking at it.

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------
    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
    ------------------------------------
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're absolutely right, don't even bother. I'm sure you didn't.
     
  19. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,882
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Still unanswered ... WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON IF NOT THE BOING?

    There is not a single proof ... nothing ... only more or less well constructed BS and you are fooled by this idiots that this is the truth!

    Everything ... really everything was refuted, but because not accepted people like you troll still around tell people this BS. Sorry man...

    Until you don't answer correctly and in detail what alternative hits the Pentagon with proof that possible in all aspects, EVERYTHING ELSE is only bla bla bla ...
     
  20. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,882
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113

    How can anyone claim it was no Boing ... and then telling it does not matter what it is? Hello?

    No possible alternative to the Boing delivers = it was the Boing = end of any further discussion, because conspiracy BS failed! So simple it is!
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If you seriously believe what you say, you need to learn basic logic. I think you're just trying to mislead the viewers who haven't taken the time to look at the proof that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&page=17&p=1066991665#post1066991665


    I know you people will never admit anything but if you have to address basic issues, you have to say some pretty lame things to maintain your positions and those lame things, such as your above post, destroy your credibility and the viewers know what you are.
    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
    http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
    https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Basic logic? How about common sense Scott? How about you address this post from the other thread and tell me why they chose Plan 2 over Plan 1.

     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you ever heard of the "process of elimination" in solving a problem? It is a valid process, practiced by many attempting to solve a problem.

    In this case, an airliner, AA77 a Boeing, is eliminated as the flying object (assuming there was a flying object at the pentagon) for several reasons. In the first place, there is nothing there that even looks like a Boeing, besides some obviously prominently placed scraps of painted aluminum. Wrong landing gear, wrong engines, no airliner seats, etc.

    Secondly, if one assumes the several video frames provided by the government from the parking lot video camera are true and correct, then the object shown in those frames is far too small to be a 757. Sorry dude.

    And since it was not AA77, who really gives a damn about what it actually was. Yes, I would love to know, but because of "national security" and government secrecy, we will never know.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Jonathan Cole and David Chandler both disagree with you.
    http://911speakout.org/plane-at-the-pentagon-b/
     

Share This Page