10 ms·

Inside the Saudi 9/11 Coverup

123 points by NN88 13y ago

altero 13y ago
So what? Most terrorist attacks on US were orchestrated by FBI or secred services, who spoon-fed attackers, give them bomb and 'catched' them. Nobody cares.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  sadly this is exactly right - the American people don't care - they pretend they do but in reality they will just do what they're told to by the media and the politicians from whichever side of the one party with two faces they pretend they're aligned with
  - jlas 13y ago
    Speak for yourself. What about the thousands of families who lost loved ones in the attacks? The American people have strong values and big hearts. You shouldn't confuse their apathy for politics as a lack of sympathy.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      where did i confuse apathy for lack of sympathy?
  - brianmcdonough 13y ago
    Generalizations like this make everyone in the country seem like lemmings. That must be the same reason why the world sends its best and brightest to America to be educated. The second fly in your ointment is that you assume the source to be credible. If it is credible, then at some point other news companies will be forced to recognize that credibility. But, sadly, the NY Post has a history of exaggerating the truth and bending it in ways that will inflame and influence people like yourself, making you the one who's being told by the media what to think.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      The world increasingly DOESN'T send its best and brightest to America to be educated. Wealthy elites often send family members to establish themselves here for the economic benefits of a system controlling most of the worlds resources supported by the world's largest military. There's nothing particularly controversial in this. Most of these facts have been long reported - just in isolated dribs and drabs over the course of the last decade and mostly people are disinterested in hearing it.
      - taproot 13y ago
        i agree anyone bright enough to tie ones own shoes wouldnt head to murica for an "education", japan, china, russia, germany, sweeden, australia, new zealand, all have far better higher education systems.
- NN88 13y ago
  Doubt it in this case. The Saudi's have a history with this sort of behavior. Their islamically led ideas of expansion have been around since the 18th century and oil is their vehicle of perpetuating that meme.
- rajacombinator 13y ago
  Indeed, Americans have the govt they deserve.
- twobits 13y ago
  "Nobody cares" They care. You can't do anything about it though.
- jellicle 13y ago
  Well, the FBI has a history of encouraging people to commit bad acts, giving them fake bombs and then "catching" them. I don't believe the FBI generally gives people real bombs, and it would be big news if you could prove that they did.
  - 48sx 13y ago
    They did in the 1993 WTC bombing. The FBI informant initiated the plot as first using pipe bombs for synagogues. Then later it evolved and he built a real bomb under the supervision and direction of the FBI and the District Attorney. The informant wanted more money and eventually the FBI lost confidence in him and cut him loose. Approximately 6-months later the bomb exploded. Afterwards, he was rehired, paid a million dollars and used a fake bomb to catch other would-be terrorists. The evidence of this is the hours of audiotapes he recorded which was covered in several NYTimes articles. The odd thing is the plot started before Ramzi Yousef entered the country. And the two Iraqi brothers, where Yousef first went, and the lady associated with them, were never caught. I don't think it was a malicious conspiracy but it was gross negligence and there is indication that the FBI wanted to catch the terrorists in the act to teach them a lesson. Even worse is that KSM is Yousef's uncle and there were several neo-con writers who cast doubt on Yousef's true identity whilst trying to link him to Iraq.
pvnick 13y ago
I sometimes try to imagine what would have happened had Flight 93 reached it's presumed target, the Capitol Building [1]. I was young at the time, around 12 or 13, but I do remember quite vividly the atmosphere of fear that engulfed my country in the wake of the attacks. I cringe to think of how much worse it could have been had Congress been directly and successfully attacked. Our democracy was already in an extremely fragile condition. A plane hitting the Capitol Building on that day likely would have guaranteed it's immediate demise [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
- VLM 13y ago
  Wasn't our democracy destroyed anyway? No more civil rights, eternal war, single party rule (the rich guys) etc?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or the highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, and arguably the lowest tax burden on poor/middle class in OECD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
    - nkoren 13y ago
      That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
kbar13 13y ago
The NY Post is not exactly the most credible news source.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  and this is why the politicians and the media elites are able to brush off these uncomfortable facts
  - mmoche 13y ago
    Maybe those "media elites" just have higher standards.
  - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
    The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If there is a conspiracy to wage war against the US, there better damn well be a more creditable news source than a sensationalist tabloid, owned by Rupert Murdoch, than the NY Post.
    - richardjordan 13y ago
      There's nothing particularly extraordinary in these claims.
      - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
        Other than a foreign power, one of this country's largest trading partners, aided and abetted criminals who staged the largest act of aggression ever inflicted on any country in the last 50 years. You have an interesting definition of the word "extraordinary". Also, let me tell you about a little tea pot which is right now in orbit around the sun.
- NN88 13y ago
  What was uncredible about the information here? The links are just blatantly obvious at this point. We've got names. meeting dates. money transfers. travel itineraries. communication logs. It ALL spell's "HOUSE OF SAUD"
patrickg_zill 13y ago
"Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. " Pretty significant sentence, in this case. Much hangs from it, in the sense that if the official government narrative and this classified information differ greatly - then the Federal govt has been involved in what is essentially a huge propaganda operation.
- NN88 13y ago
  Thats kinda how things work though. Its pretty amazing that we're a country so fervently attached to the rule of law in some instances. It's kinda amazing actually. Other nations wouldn't have it so lucky. I'm sure stuff like this is why Cynthia McKinney just said to hell with it all...
- kps 13y ago
  America appears to have an analogue of Parliamentary privilege¹ written into the US Constitution (“for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”), so why can't they discuss it there? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
  - dlitz 13y ago
    'except Felony'
    - kps 13y ago
      It reads to me as though speaking in Congress can't be made a felony (or treason, or breach of the peace) because that would involve the Member being questioned for their speech in another place (i.e., a court) — but then, this is the sort of thing that makes American politics such fun to watch, from a bit of a distance.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      There's two separate provisions of the Speech and Debate clause: 1) Members can't be arrested while attending a session of their House of Congress, or while travelling to or from such a session, except in relation to charges of "Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace." and: 2) Members can't be held accountable for any speech or debate in their House except by the same House itself. The "Treason, Felony, or Breach of Peace" exception has nothing to do with the second provision.
tsunamifury 13y ago
Coverup? Entire blockbuster films were made about this which explicitly linked the two (The Kingdom). Don't mistake people either not caring or not understanding with a coverup. Watch the opening title sequence for one of the best summaries of the linked events building to 9/11 and the Saudi response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o
- crystaln 13y ago
  The existence of unofficially recognized evidence and conclusions does not preclude a coverup. The government is not releasing documents or recognizing facts, and people who are open to a more sinister truth are marginalized.
  - NN88 13y ago
    I'm kinda amazed that after 12 years, info is not only leaking out, but is still painting a picture of what damn near everyone thought in the first place...
- NN88 13y ago
  Some people don't like any strain of doubt when they can't accept they might be wrong. Its pretty much confirmed IMO that the Saudi's probably were behind the whole thing. Which is odd because they have a serious history of state-backed terrorism and islamic expansion throughout the world.
616c 13y ago
And for your viewing pleasure, the obligatory XKCD reference. http://xkcd.com/258/ http://xkcd.com/258/ There is probably more than meets the eye because the brain matter behind them is making it so.
- twobits 13y ago
  If you put everything under one name, it helps ridiculing the plausible theories by injecting stupid ones.
  - raverbashing 13y ago
    Yes The matter discussed has nothing to do with the other , more common, theories.
  - javert 13y ago
    Yep. Ayn Rand called this "package dealing," though she wasn't thinkimng about conspiracy theories in particular. For instance, "selfish." Is that pursuing rational long-term values, or is that victimizing others in a futile attempt at short-term gain? Catholic priests lumped them together intentionally since the middle ages, and so it continues throughout our culture today to help justify various kinds of collectivism. Today people are doing it with "conspiracy theories" to try to prevent challenges to their worldview. But the fact is, sometimes, conspiracies actually do happen!
- lukifer 13y ago
  There is a problem with reflexively dismissing "conspiracy theories": it increases the attack surface for deceiving the public. Imagine telling a computer user "Don't be so paranoid, it's safe to open that binary. Do you really think there's some conspiracy to hijack your computing power as part of some botnet? Har har!" Case-by-case, you'd be right nearly all of the time (at least for software the user sought out themselves, and didn't get linked to by spam). But by dismissing that concern out of hand, it becomes far more likely the user won't do 5 minutes of Google research, and will open an untrusted binary that really is unsafe. Skepticism should apply across the board, and certainty should be an unachievable asymptote for "official" and "crackpot" explanations alike. There is a sufficient track record of powerful entities successfully deceiving the public that even the craziest of theories should be examined and considered, if only to spread the antibodies of skepticism.
maxharris 13y ago
Given this evidence, Leonard Peikoff's essay on the subject is worth examining. It was published a couple of months after the attacks: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf
- javert 13y ago
  For people who don't want to read the essay, I'll just say: Peikoff argues that modern terrorism is almost entirely coming about through sponsorship by a couple of very, very bad states, and simply ending those states in a proper, just war would solve the problem and make "Fortress America" unnecessary. (Any mistakes here are likely my own, not his.) maxharris, wasn't this actually a full-page ad in the NYT? Could be wrong but for some reason I thought it was.
  - maxharris 13y ago
    Yes, this was a full-page ad in the NYT.
arangus 13y ago
A very interesting documentary that many people haven't seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs
joejohnson 13y ago
>>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due process of any kind.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The US government has always been able to wage war, and has never required trial or due process to kill the enemy in war.
  - maratd 13y ago
    The constitution requires a declaration of war. That requirement has been withered away in recent years, don't you think? It was there to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense.
    - chad_oliver 13y ago
      To be fair, a large part of why America doesn't declare war is because no-one declares war. After WWII we no longer consider war-making a sovereign right of nations, so a declaration of war is useless.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify that this declaration need take any particular form. I've never seen a convincing explanation for why Congressional authorization such as the AUMF doesn't qualify as an exercise of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8. Especially considering that the practice of Congress authorizing military actions without a formal declaration of war dates back almost to the founding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite....
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > The constitution requires a declaration of war. First, no, it doesn't. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It neither explicitly requires nor has ever been understood to implicitly require a war be declared to be prosecuted in all circumstance, particularly not in the event of a war initiated by an enemy attack. Second, as with every other Congressional power, exercising the power to declare war doesn't require any kind of magic words. All of the controversial drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets have been as part of action specifically authorized by Congress in Public Law 107-40 [1]. Whatever problems there are with the War on Terrorism, the absence of Congressional declaration of war certainly isn't one of them. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
jgalt212 13y ago
What's Bush's interest in protecting the Saudis? It certainly would have been a lot cheaper to invade SA than Iraq.
- if_by_whisky 13y ago
  Wat
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    "The US would be attacking one its closest allies in the region." But if the Saudis were, indeed, responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they would, by definition, no longer be our ally. They would have had committed an act of war against the U.S. If the U.K. or France had blown up the WTC and the Pentagon, they would no longer be our allies either.
    - pcvarmint 13y ago
      The U.S. was in a dilemma because Saudi Arabia was protecting the value of the petrodollar. Even if Saudi Arabia attacked the U.S., it was not worth undermining the U.S. Dollar as the world fiat reserve currency. Hussein, Gadhafi, al-Assad and Iran all moved away from the U.S. Dollar, and had to be dealt with accordingly.
- jamestnz 13y ago
  > What's Bush's interest in protecting the Saudis? Perhaps not so much protecting the Saudis, as protecting the established pretext for the administration's response? For instance, it has been reported that within mere hours of the first plane hitting, high-level officials were specifically seeking ways to blame it on Iraq, without regard to whether that was a relevant course of action [1]. Additionally, senior officials have stated that they believe Bush intended on invading Iraq at the time he took office, or at least well ahead of 9/11 [2][3]. And it's clear that protecting the public story was important: The Bush administration outrageously persecuted those who attempted to move the public discourse in directions that contradicted the official line, for instance [4] which was nothing but retribution for pointing out that the administration lied (i.e.: already knew their claims about uranium and Niger had been specifically investigated and debunked). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9... Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. ... [N]otes that had been taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide ... quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL" (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not". [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke believes Bush took office with a predetermined plan to invade Iraq. [3] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/ And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
pvdm 13y ago
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8& http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8& In case no one has seen this.
- DonGateley 13y ago
  A link with no explanation pretty much guarantees that no one will either.
  - pvdm 13y ago
    The OP is pointing a finger at the Saudis. However, there are many unexplained discrepancies in the official account of 9/11 that suggests a deeper conspiracy.
MisterWebz 13y ago
"She had accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleged serious security breaches and cover-ups and that intelligence had been deliberately suppressed, endangering national security." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
- joejohnson 13y ago
  From Wikipedia: "Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report." Publicly questioning the official 9/11 story is a great way to be ridiculed. The media and other propaganda outlets have so effectively labelled anything contrary to the party line as "conspiracy theory", discrediting anyone who points out the hundreds and hundreds of holes in the official story. The only credible theory (taking a cold look at the facts that have come to light over the past 12 years) is that AT THE VERY LEAST the US Government knew about 9/11 in advance. Maybe, with time, it will become more socially acceptable to openly wonder what really happened. And probably by that time, most people won't give a shit.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    Er, maybe that's because conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 often go off into complete nonsense? We already know the US intelligence community failed to put together the pieces before 9/11. There are dozens of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, all of them with holes of their own.
  - thenmar 13y ago
    Could you provide a summary or breakdown (with sources?) of the facts about the U.S. government knowing about 9/11 in advance (and allowing it to happen when they could have stopped it or evacuated the buildings, as you're implying)? If you do have some knowledge I don't, putting it in an accessible form like that would be very helpful - a lot of 9/11 "truth" material is steeped in scifi conspiracy nonsense or global elite lizard people type stuff. Or if you ask for clarification, you're told to watch a 2 hour youtube video filled with "many experts agree that this is wrong" weasel words.
caublestone 13y ago
What was the motivation for Saudi Arabia to carry out these attacks? Was it an independent decision by Saudi elite? Did any events take place that would encourage vengeance of some kind? And why did it take place just once?
ilaksh 13y ago
The Saudis were helping the US since we are allies. 9/11 was a false-flag attack. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/louis-freeh-interview.html http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/loui...

123 points by NN88 13y ago

So what? Most terrorist attacks on US were orchestrated by FBI or secred services, who spoon-fed attackers, give them bomb and 'catched' them. Nobody cares.

richardjordan 13y ago
sadly this is exactly right - the American people don't care - they pretend they do but in reality they will just do what they're told to by the media and the politicians from whichever side of the one party with two faces they pretend they're aligned with
- jlas 13y ago
  Speak for yourself. What about the thousands of families who lost loved ones in the attacks? The American people have strong values and big hearts. You shouldn't confuse their apathy for politics as a lack of sympathy.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    where did i confuse apathy for lack of sympathy?
- brianmcdonough 13y ago
  Generalizations like this make everyone in the country seem like lemmings. That must be the same reason why the world sends its best and brightest to America to be educated. The second fly in your ointment is that you assume the source to be credible. If it is credible, then at some point other news companies will be forced to recognize that credibility. But, sadly, the NY Post has a history of exaggerating the truth and bending it in ways that will inflame and influence people like yourself, making you the one who's being told by the media what to think.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    The world increasingly DOESN'T send its best and brightest to America to be educated. Wealthy elites often send family members to establish themselves here for the economic benefits of a system controlling most of the worlds resources supported by the world's largest military. There's nothing particularly controversial in this. Most of these facts have been long reported - just in isolated dribs and drabs over the course of the last decade and mostly people are disinterested in hearing it.
    - taproot 13y ago
      i agree anyone bright enough to tie ones own shoes wouldnt head to murica for an "education", japan, china, russia, germany, sweeden, australia, new zealand, all have far better higher education systems.
NN88 13y ago
Doubt it in this case. The Saudi's have a history with this sort of behavior. Their islamically led ideas of expansion have been around since the 18th century and oil is their vehicle of perpetuating that meme.
rajacombinator 13y ago
Indeed, Americans have the govt they deserve.
twobits 13y ago
"Nobody cares" They care. You can't do anything about it though.
jellicle 13y ago
Well, the FBI has a history of encouraging people to commit bad acts, giving them fake bombs and then "catching" them. I don't believe the FBI generally gives people real bombs, and it would be big news if you could prove that they did.
- 48sx 13y ago
  They did in the 1993 WTC bombing. The FBI informant initiated the plot as first using pipe bombs for synagogues. Then later it evolved and he built a real bomb under the supervision and direction of the FBI and the District Attorney. The informant wanted more money and eventually the FBI lost confidence in him and cut him loose. Approximately 6-months later the bomb exploded. Afterwards, he was rehired, paid a million dollars and used a fake bomb to catch other would-be terrorists. The evidence of this is the hours of audiotapes he recorded which was covered in several NYTimes articles. The odd thing is the plot started before Ramzi Yousef entered the country. And the two Iraqi brothers, where Yousef first went, and the lady associated with them, were never caught. I don't think it was a malicious conspiracy but it was gross negligence and there is indication that the FBI wanted to catch the terrorists in the act to teach them a lesson. Even worse is that KSM is Yousef's uncle and there were several neo-con writers who cast doubt on Yousef's true identity whilst trying to link him to Iraq.

pvnick 13y ago

I sometimes try to imagine what would have happened had Flight 93 reached it's presumed target, the Capitol Building [1]. I was young at the time, around 12 or 13, but I do remember quite vividly the atmosphere of fear that engulfed my country in the wake of the attacks. I cringe to think of how much worse it could have been had Congress been directly and successfully attacked. Our democracy was already in an extremely fragile condition. A plane hitting the Capitol Building on that day likely would have guaranteed it's immediate demise [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

VLM 13y ago
Wasn't our democracy destroyed anyway? No more civil rights, eternal war, single party rule (the rich guys) etc?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or the highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, and arguably the lowest tax burden on poor/middle class in OECD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
  - nkoren 13y ago
    That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago

kbar13 13y ago

The NY Post is not exactly the most credible news source.

richardjordan 13y ago
and this is why the politicians and the media elites are able to brush off these uncomfortable facts
- mmoche 13y ago
  Maybe those "media elites" just have higher standards.
- Patrick_Devine 13y ago
  The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If there is a conspiracy to wage war against the US, there better damn well be a more creditable news source than a sensationalist tabloid, owned by Rupert Murdoch, than the NY Post.
  - richardjordan 13y ago
    There's nothing particularly extraordinary in these claims.
    - Patrick_Devine 13y ago
      Other than a foreign power, one of this country's largest trading partners, aided and abetted criminals who staged the largest act of aggression ever inflicted on any country in the last 50 years. You have an interesting definition of the word "extraordinary". Also, let me tell you about a little tea pot which is right now in orbit around the sun.
NN88 13y ago
What was uncredible about the information here? The links are just blatantly obvious at this point. We've got names. meeting dates. money transfers. travel itineraries. communication logs. It ALL spell's "HOUSE OF SAUD"

patrickg_zill 13y ago

"Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. " Pretty significant sentence, in this case. Much hangs from it, in the sense that if the official government narrative and this classified information differ greatly - then the Federal govt has been involved in what is essentially a huge propaganda operation.

NN88 13y ago
Thats kinda how things work though. Its pretty amazing that we're a country so fervently attached to the rule of law in some instances. It's kinda amazing actually. Other nations wouldn't have it so lucky. I'm sure stuff like this is why Cynthia McKinney just said to hell with it all...
kps 13y ago
America appears to have an analogue of Parliamentary privilege¹ written into the US Constitution (“for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”), so why can't they discuss it there? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
- dlitz 13y ago
  'except Felony'
  - kps 13y ago
    It reads to me as though speaking in Congress can't be made a felony (or treason, or breach of the peace) because that would involve the Member being questioned for their speech in another place (i.e., a court) — but then, this is the sort of thing that makes American politics such fun to watch, from a bit of a distance.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    There's two separate provisions of the Speech and Debate clause: 1) Members can't be arrested while attending a session of their House of Congress, or while travelling to or from such a session, except in relation to charges of "Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace." and: 2) Members can't be held accountable for any speech or debate in their House except by the same House itself. The "Treason, Felony, or Breach of Peace" exception has nothing to do with the second provision.

tsunamifury 13y ago

Coverup? Entire blockbuster films were made about this which explicitly linked the two (The Kingdom). Don't mistake people either not caring or not understanding with a coverup. Watch the opening title sequence for one of the best summaries of the linked events building to 9/11 and the Saudi response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o

crystaln 13y ago
The existence of unofficially recognized evidence and conclusions does not preclude a coverup. The government is not releasing documents or recognizing facts, and people who are open to a more sinister truth are marginalized.
- NN88 13y ago
  I'm kinda amazed that after 12 years, info is not only leaking out, but is still painting a picture of what damn near everyone thought in the first place...
NN88 13y ago
Some people don't like any strain of doubt when they can't accept they might be wrong. Its pretty much confirmed IMO that the Saudi's probably were behind the whole thing. Which is odd because they have a serious history of state-backed terrorism and islamic expansion throughout the world.

616c 13y ago

And for your viewing pleasure, the obligatory XKCD reference. http://xkcd.com/258/ http://xkcd.com/258/ There is probably more than meets the eye because the brain matter behind them is making it so.

twobits 13y ago
If you put everything under one name, it helps ridiculing the plausible theories by injecting stupid ones.
- raverbashing 13y ago
  Yes The matter discussed has nothing to do with the other , more common, theories.
- javert 13y ago
  Yep. Ayn Rand called this "package dealing," though she wasn't thinkimng about conspiracy theories in particular. For instance, "selfish." Is that pursuing rational long-term values, or is that victimizing others in a futile attempt at short-term gain? Catholic priests lumped them together intentionally since the middle ages, and so it continues throughout our culture today to help justify various kinds of collectivism. Today people are doing it with "conspiracy theories" to try to prevent challenges to their worldview. But the fact is, sometimes, conspiracies actually do happen!
lukifer 13y ago
There is a problem with reflexively dismissing "conspiracy theories": it increases the attack surface for deceiving the public. Imagine telling a computer user "Don't be so paranoid, it's safe to open that binary. Do you really think there's some conspiracy to hijack your computing power as part of some botnet? Har har!" Case-by-case, you'd be right nearly all of the time (at least for software the user sought out themselves, and didn't get linked to by spam). But by dismissing that concern out of hand, it becomes far more likely the user won't do 5 minutes of Google research, and will open an untrusted binary that really is unsafe. Skepticism should apply across the board, and certainty should be an unachievable asymptote for "official" and "crackpot" explanations alike. There is a sufficient track record of powerful entities successfully deceiving the public that even the craziest of theories should be examined and considered, if only to spread the antibodies of skepticism.

maxharris 13y ago

Given this evidence, Leonard Peikoff's essay on the subject is worth examining. It was published a couple of months after the attacks: http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf

javert 13y ago
For people who don't want to read the essay, I'll just say: Peikoff argues that modern terrorism is almost entirely coming about through sponsorship by a couple of very, very bad states, and simply ending those states in a proper, just war would solve the problem and make "Fortress America" unnecessary. (Any mistakes here are likely my own, not his.) maxharris, wasn't this actually a full-page ad in the NYT? Could be wrong but for some reason I thought it was.
- maxharris 13y ago
  Yes, this was a full-page ad in the NYT.

arangus 13y ago

A very interesting documentary that many people haven't seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs

joejohnson 13y ago

>>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due process of any kind.

dragonwriter 13y ago
The US government has always been able to wage war, and has never required trial or due process to kill the enemy in war.
- maratd 13y ago
  The constitution requires a declaration of war. That requirement has been withered away in recent years, don't you think? It was there to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense.
  - chad_oliver 13y ago
    To be fair, a large part of why America doesn't declare war is because no-one declares war. After WWII we no longer consider war-making a sovereign right of nations, so a declaration of war is useless.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not specify that this declaration need take any particular form. I've never seen a convincing explanation for why Congressional authorization such as the AUMF doesn't qualify as an exercise of Congress's powers under Article I, Section 8. Especially considering that the practice of Congress authorizing military actions without a formal declaration of war dates back almost to the founding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite....
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The constitution requires a declaration of war. First, no, it doesn't. It gives Congress the power to declare war. It neither explicitly requires nor has ever been understood to implicitly require a war be declared to be prosecuted in all circumstance, particularly not in the event of a war initiated by an enemy attack. Second, as with every other Congressional power, exercising the power to declare war doesn't require any kind of magic words. All of the controversial drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets have been as part of action specifically authorized by Congress in Public Law 107-40 [1]. Whatever problems there are with the War on Terrorism, the absence of Congressional declaration of war certainly isn't one of them. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...

jgalt212 13y ago

What's Bush's interest in protecting the Saudis? It certainly would have been a lot cheaper to invade SA than Iraq.

if_by_whisky 13y ago
Wat
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- greenyoda 13y ago
  "The US would be attacking one its closest allies in the region." But if the Saudis were, indeed, responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they would, by definition, no longer be our ally. They would have had committed an act of war against the U.S. If the U.K. or France had blown up the WTC and the Pentagon, they would no longer be our allies either.
  - pcvarmint 13y ago
    The U.S. was in a dilemma because Saudi Arabia was protecting the value of the petrodollar. Even if Saudi Arabia attacked the U.S., it was not worth undermining the U.S. Dollar as the world fiat reserve currency. Hussein, Gadhafi, al-Assad and Iran all moved away from the U.S. Dollar, and had to be dealt with accordingly.
jamestnz 13y ago
> What's Bush's interest in protecting the Saudis? Perhaps not so much protecting the Saudis, as protecting the established pretext for the administration's response? For instance, it has been reported that within mere hours of the first plane hitting, high-level officials were specifically seeking ways to blame it on Iraq, without regard to whether that was a relevant course of action [1]. Additionally, senior officials have stated that they believe Bush intended on invading Iraq at the time he took office, or at least well ahead of 9/11 [2][3]. And it's clear that protecting the public story was important: The Bush administration outrageously persecuted those who attempted to move the public discourse in directions that contradicted the official line, for instance [4] which was nothing but retribution for pointing out that the administration lied (i.e.: already knew their claims about uranium and Niger had been specifically investigated and debunked). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9-11/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-9... Rumsfeld was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks" five hours after an American Airlines jet slammed into the Pentagon. ... [N]otes that had been taken at the time by a Rumsfeld aide ... quote the defense chief asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH (Saddam Hussein) at the same time, not only UBL" (Usama bin Laden). The administration should "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not". [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke believes Bush took office with a predetermined plan to invade Iraq. [3] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/ And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

pvdm 13y ago

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8& http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8& In case no one has seen this.

DonGateley 13y ago
A link with no explanation pretty much guarantees that no one will either.
- pvdm 13y ago
  The OP is pointing a finger at the Saudis. However, there are many unexplained discrepancies in the official account of 9/11 that suggests a deeper conspiracy.

MisterWebz 13y ago

"She had accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleged serious security breaches and cover-ups and that intelligence had been deliberately suppressed, endangering national security." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

joejohnson 13y ago
From Wikipedia: "Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report." Publicly questioning the official 9/11 story is a great way to be ridiculed. The media and other propaganda outlets have so effectively labelled anything contrary to the party line as "conspiracy theory", discrediting anyone who points out the hundreds and hundreds of holes in the official story. The only credible theory (taking a cold look at the facts that have come to light over the past 12 years) is that AT THE VERY LEAST the US Government knew about 9/11 in advance. Maybe, with time, it will become more socially acceptable to openly wonder what really happened. And probably by that time, most people won't give a shit.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Er, maybe that's because conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 often go off into complete nonsense? We already know the US intelligence community failed to put together the pieces before 9/11. There are dozens of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, all of them with holes of their own.
- thenmar 13y ago
  Could you provide a summary or breakdown (with sources?) of the facts about the U.S. government knowing about 9/11 in advance (and allowing it to happen when they could have stopped it or evacuated the buildings, as you're implying)? If you do have some knowledge I don't, putting it in an accessible form like that would be very helpful - a lot of 9/11 "truth" material is steeped in scifi conspiracy nonsense or global elite lizard people type stuff. Or if you ask for clarification, you're told to watch a 2 hour youtube video filled with "many experts agree that this is wrong" weasel words.

caublestone 13y ago

What was the motivation for Saudi Arabia to carry out these attacks? Was it an independent decision by Saudi elite? Did any events take place that would encourage vengeance of some kind? And why did it take place just once?

ilaksh 13y ago

The Saudis were helping the US since we are allies. 9/11 was a false-flag attack. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/louis-freeh-interview.html http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/loui...