A Senator Just Went on 60 Minutes Claiming the 9/11 Attackers “Had Support from Within the US”

[Anti Federalist]

Well, how about that?



A Senator Just Went on 60 Minutes Claiming the 9/11 Attackers “Had Support from Within the US”

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/senator-60-minutes-911-attackers-had-support-us/#aR2sOBaE7Qjk6iJQ.99

Underneath the visitors’ center in the United States Capitol is a secure room where the House Intelligence Committee stores highly classified files. In that room is a file titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters.” It is twenty-eight pages long and it contains apparently damning information on the events leading up to the attacks on 9/11.

“Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” said Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch back in 2014.

It has been well-known by informed Americans that Lynch, read the “stunning” documents, and claimed they “offer[ed] direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities.”

However, the 28-pages have been conveniently avoided by those in the mainstream media — until now.

On Sunday night’s episode of 60-Minutes, former Florida governor, Democratic U.S. Senator and onetime chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Bob Graham will implicate the US ally on national television.

On Saturday, CBS News released a trailer for the episode and an accompanying article.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States,” says Graham in the clip.

Until now, anyone who questioned the highly suspect ‘official’ narrative on the 9/11 attacks has been labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. But when current and former members of Congress, U.S. officials, and the 9/11 Commissioners themselves call for the release of these 28-pages, which tells a different story of what happened that fateful day — people will listen.

CBS reports, Graham and his Joint Inquiry co-chair in the House, former Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) — who went on to be director of the CIA — say the 28 pages were excised from their report by the Bush Administration in the interest of national security. Graham wouldn’t discuss the classified contents, but says the 28 pages outline a network of people he believes supported hijackers in the U.S. He tells Steve Kroft he believes the hijackers were “substantially” supported by Saudi Arabia. Asked if the support was from government, rich people or charities, the former senator replies, “all of the above.”

[Ronin Truth]

LIHOP, MIHOP! Where have I ever heard those before?

911? Cui bono?

[Anti Federalist]

LIHOP, MIHOP! Where have I ever heard those before?

911? Cui bono?

9/11 was an inside job.

[Jan2017]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskMwrLuwWM

Bob Graham : "I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia"
.

[Ronin Truth]

9/11 was an inside job. So was Pearl Harbor.

[pcosmar]

So was Pearl Harbor.

one red pill at a time.

[Warlord]

Walter Jones has been pushing 28pages.org for a while now. Please visit his subforum and consider a donation to his congressional campaign. A neocon is trying to unseat him!

[phill4paul]

Until now, anyone who questioned the highly suspect ‘official’ narrative on the 9/11 attacks has been labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook.

<Raises hand.> I'm sure there are still forum members that would continue leveling these charges.

[Zippyjuan]

"I think it's plausible" isn't quite "had" support.


he believes supported hijackers in the U.S

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-secret-28-pages-may-hold-clues-about-saudi-support-for-911-hijackers/


Top secret "28 pages" may hold clues about Saudi support for 9/11 hijackers

Graham's comments in the past said they indicated that somebody from Saudi Arabia helped fund the attacks.


Graham wouldn’t discuss the classified contents, but says the 28 pages outline a network of people he believes supported hijackers in the U.S. He tells Steve Kroft he believes the hijackers were “substantially” supported by Saudi Arabia. Asked if the support was from government, rich people or charities, the former senator replies, “all of the above.”

[Brian4Liberty]

Saudi King receives US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2016/04/07/Saudi-King-receives-US-speaker-of-the-house-Paul-Ryan.html)

[Warlord]

oh look, Zippyjuan shows up to spin the govt line.

[ProBlue33]

Well anybody who wants those 28 pages to stay hidden, is a domestic enemy of truth and justice, and that doesn't matter what side of 9/11 you are on.

And you better believe the Saudis have something to hide.
Do you think they might be nervous about the Trump rhetoric, because if he comes to power and finds out the Saudis were involved, you know it will be emotional for him, his reaction would not be tempered.

[phill4paul]

"I think it's plausible" isn't quite "had" support.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-secret-28-pages-may-hold-clues-about-saudi-support-for-911-hijackers/

IIRC these documents are classified. Therefore, he cannot make statements with certainty regarding them. It's called C.Y.A. ;)

Much like Massies' declaration.

“As I read it, and we all had our own experience, I had to stop every couple of pages and just sort of try to absorb and try to rearrange my understanding of history. “It challenges you to re-think everything. I think the whole country needs to go through that.”

It's not like than can tell you exactly what is in them without them being declassified.

[Zippyjuan]

The paper is not the 9/11 report (which was written afterwards) but a document titled " Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" and the chapter in question was " “Part 4: Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters". The entire report was over 800 pages.

If somebody wants to go crazy and read it all (except the 28 pages), here is a link to a PDF of it: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/joint-inquiry-intelligence-community-activities-and-after-terrorist-attacks-september
[/QUOTE]

It was not a look at causes of 9/11 but at what the intelligence community did and did not do. Conclusion summary:


The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence conducted an inquiry into the activities of the U.S. Intelligence Community in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and made recommendations to address weaknesses in the system.

CONCLUSION – FACTUAL FINDINGS

In short, for a variety of reasons, the Intelligence Community failed to capitalize on both the individual and collective significance of available information that appears relevant to the events of September 11. As a result, the Community missed opportunities to disrupt the September 11th plot by denying entry to or detaining would-be hijackers; to at least try to unravel the plot through surveillance and other investigative work within the United States; and, finally, to generate a heightened state of alert and thus harden the homeland against attack. No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information. We will never definitively know to what extent the Community would have been able and willing to exploit fully all the opportunities that may have emerged. The important point is that the Intelligence Community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Usama Bin Ladin's plan to attack these United States on September 11, 2001.

SYSTEMIC FINDINGS

Our review of the events surrounding September 11 has revealed a number of systemic weaknesses that hindered the Intelligence Community's counterterrorism efforts before September 11. If not addressed, these weaknesses will continue to undercut U.S. counterterrorist efforts. In order to minimize the possibility of attacks like September 11 in the future, effective solutions to those problems need to be developed and fully implemented as soon as possible.

http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/joint-inquiry-into-intelligence-community-activities-before-after-terrorist-attacks-september-11-2001/p14152

[LibertyEagle]

<Raises hand.> I'm sure there are still forum members that would continue leveling these charges.

I think it's important to remember that believing that we were not told the whole truth is entirely different from asserting that our government blew up the buildings.

[Zippyjuan]

New Yorker article on it: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages


Those advocating declassification present a powerful and oftentimes emotional argument, but others offer compelling reasons that the document should remain buried under the Capitol. Immediately after the Joint Congressional Inquiry finished its report, in late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—better known as the 9/11 Commission—began its work, under the leadership of Thomas Kean, the former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana. The questions raised by the twenty-eight pages were an important part of the commission’s agenda; indeed, its director, Philip Zelikow, hired staffers who had worked for the Joint Inquiry on that very section to follow up on the material. According to Zelikow, what they found does not substantiate the arguments made by the Joint Inquiry and by the 9/11 families in the lawsuit against the Saudis. He characterized the twenty-eight pages as “an agglomeration of preliminary, unvetted reports” concerning Saudi involvement. “They were wild accusations that needed to be checked out,” he said.

Zelikow and his staff were ultimately unable to prove any official Saudi complicity in the attacks. A former staff member of the 9/11 Commission who is intimately familiar with the material in the twenty-eight pages recommends against their declassification, warning that the release of inflammatory and speculative information could “ramp up passions” and damage U.S.-Saudi relations.

Stephen Lynch agrees that the twenty-eight pages were buried in order to preserve the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. “Part of the reason it was classified was the fact that it would create a visceral response,” he told me. “There would be a backlash.” But, thirteen years later, is that still a reason to keep the document a secret?


* * *

The theory behind the lawsuit against the Saudis goes back to the 1991 Gulf War. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was a shattering event in the country’s history, calling into question the ancient bargain between the royal family and the Wahhabi clerics, whose blessing allows the Saud family to rule. In 1992, a group of the country’s most prominent religious leaders issued the Memorandum of Advice, which implicitly threatened a clerical coup. The royal family, shaken by the threat to its rule, accommodated most of the clerics’ demands, giving them more control over Saudi society. One of their directives called for the creation of a Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which would be given offices in Saudi embassies and consulates. As the journalist Philip Shenon writes, citing John Lehman, the former Secretary of the Navy and a 9/11 commissioner, “it was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the Saudis’ ‘fifth column’ in support of Muslim extremists.”

The story told in those twenty-eight pages picks up with the arrival of two young Saudis, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, in Los Angeles in January, 2000. They were the first wave of the 9/11 hijackers. Neither spoke English well, so their mission—to learn how to pilot a Boeing jetliner—seemed crazily improbable, especially if they had no assistance.

Two weeks after Hazmi and Mihdhar got to L.A., a benefactor suddenly appeared. Omar al-Bayoumi, a forty-two-year-old Saudi national, was an employee of the Saudi aviation-services company Dallah Avco. Although he drew a salary, he apparently never did any actual work for the company during the seven years he spent in America. Bayoumi was in frequent contact with the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., and with the consulate in Los Angeles; he was widely considered in the Arab expat community to be a Saudi spy, though the Saudi government has denied that he was.

Bayoumi and a friend drove from San Diego, where they lived, to L.A. Bayoumi then went to the Saudi consulate, where he spent about an hour meeting with an official in the Ministry of Islamic Affairs named Fahad al-Thumairy, whom he considered to be his spiritual adviser. (In 2002, Thumairy was stripped of his diplomatic visa and deported, because of suspected ties to terrorists.) Afterward, Bayoumi and his friend drove to a halal restaurant in Culver City. Bayoumi later told investigators that, while eating there, he happened to overhear two men—Hazmi and Mihdhar—speaking Arabic with Gulf accents. He struck up a conversation with them and soon invited them to move to San Diego. He set them up in the same apartment complex where he lived. Because the hijackers-in-training did not have a checking account, Bayoumi paid their security deposit and first month’s rent (for which they immediately reimbursed him). He also introduced them to members of the Arab community, possibly including the imam of a local mosque, Anwar al-Awlaki—later to become the most prominent spokesperson for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Another Saudi who was in San Diego at the time, Osama Basnan, also befriended Hazmi and Mihdhar. As it happened, Basnan’s wife was receiving charitable gifts from Prince Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa. The payments—as much as seventy-three thousand dollars over a period of three years—were supposed to fund the treatment of a medical condition that Basnan’s wife suffered from. According to pleadings in the lawsuit against the Saudis, some of that money went to support the hijackers in San Diego. The F.B.I. has not found any evidence that the money got into the hands of the hijackers, however, and the 9/11 Commission found no links to the royal family.

“We assert that purported ‘charities,’ established by the government of the Kingdom to propagate radical Wahhabi ideology throughout the world, served as the primary sources of funding and logistical support for Al Qaeda for more than a decade leading up to the 9/11 attacks,” Sean Carter, one of the lead attorneys in the lawsuit, told me. “Not coincidentally, these so-called charities were themselves regulated by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which from its formation, in 1993, assumed primary responsibility for the Kingdom’s efforts to spread Wahhabi Islam.”

Thomas Kean remembers finally having the opportunity to read those twenty-eight pages after he became chairman of the 9/11 Commission—“so secret that I had to get all of my security clearances and go into the bowels of Congress with someone looking over my shoulder.” He also remembers thinking at the time that most of what he was reading should never have been kept secret. But the focus on the twenty-eight pages obscures the fact that many important documents are still classified—“a ton of stuff,” Kean told me, including, for instance, the 9/11 Commission’s interviews with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Clinton. “I don’t know of a single thing in our report that should not be public after ten years,” Kean said.

September 11th may be a part of history now, but some of the events that led to that horrible day remain veiled by the political considerations of the present. The intelligence community doesn’t want to light up its failures once again, and no doubt the Obama Administration doesn’t want to introduce additional strains on its relationship with the Saudis. In the meantime, the forces that led to catastrophe before are gathering strength once again. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky and a sponsor of the House resolution to declassify the material, told me that the experience of reading those twenty-eight pages caused him to rethink how to handle the rise of ISIS. It has made him much more cautious about a military response. “We have to be careful, when we run the calculations of action, what the repercussions will be,” he said.

“In some ways, it’s more dangerous today,” Timothy Roemer, who was a member of both the Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission, observed. “A more complex series of threats are coming together than even before 9/11, involving ISIS, Al Qaeda, and cyber-terrorist capabilities. The more the American people know about what happened thirteen years ago, the more we can have a credible, open debate” about our security needs. Releasing the twenty-eight pages, he said, might be a step forward. “Hopefully, after some initial shock and awe, it would make our process work better. Our government has an obligation to do this.”

[jmdrake]

9/11 was an inside job.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

And to all the haters out there....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM

[Weston White]

So was Pearl Harbor.

And the Reichstag fire and Night of the Long Knives/Hummingbird, and... and... and... and... and...

[Ronin Truth]

one red pill at a time.

If it is the right one, one is all it takes.

[Warlord]

Please at the very least acknowledge the work done by Rep. Walter Jones and give him a donation!

[donnay]

I think it's important to remember that believing that we were not told the whole truth is entirely different from asserting that our government blew up the buildings.

An "inside job" does not mean all of government were involved. There are good people on the inside too.

[jmdrake]

I think it's important to remember that believing that we were not told the whole truth is entirely different from asserting that our government blew up the buildings.

I think it's important to remember that believing that out government has been infiltrated by those who mean us harm, something that has been a fact ever since Benedict Arnold and the American revolution is entirely different than the straw man argument you are using that anyone believes "the government blew up the buildings."

This should explain what those you are arguing against are actually saying.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rsMG2hHsLo&nohtml5=False

BYERS SNR's living room. It's day but the curtains are drawn. BYERS enters. He goes over to a small bureau and pulls open a compartment. He then notices several magazines on one shelf. He pulls some out - they are all Lone Gunman newsletters. Headlines: "ATMs STEAL CASH", "SUPERMARKET BARCODES USED TO TRACK YOU". While he is looking as these, another man enters the room.)


BYERS SNR: John.

(We see it's BYERS SNR.)

BYERS: Dad.

(BYERS goes over to his father. He starts to smile. His father then slaps him across his face.)

BYERS SNR: What the hell are you doing? Why can't you stay out of this. Leave me buried.

BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?

(BYERS SNR doesn't respond.)

BYERS: We know it's a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.

BYERS SNR: Because it's no longer a game.

BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?

BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.

BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?

BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction ...

BYERS: For what possible gain?

BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamouring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.

BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales?

(BYERS SNR nods.)

BYERS: When?

BYERS SNR: Tonight.

BYERS: How are you going to stop them?

(BYERS SNR says nothing.)

BYERS: Why didn't you tell the world about this - go to the press?

BYERS SNR: You think I'd still be drawing breath 30 minutes after I made that call? The press - who's going to run this story?

BYERS: We would!

BYERS SNR: This?

(He goes over to the pile of Lone Gunman newsletters and picks one up.)

BYERS SNR: This is bird cage liner. Wild-eyed crap, up there with "Elvis is an Alien" and two-headed babies.

BYERS: You obviously read it.

BYERS SNR: Don't be so damned naive. This isn't going to save the world. (He sighs) I'm doing what I can, John. I don't have all the specifics on scenario 12-D, but I think I know the flight they've chosen. You stay out of it. I don't want Overlord gunning for you too.

Those of us who understand the truth about 9/11 are not saying the entire government is in on it. The entire government wasn't responsible for planning Operation Northwoods. But a small faction was. Thankfully they were stopped. Operation Northwoods itself was covered up for years. The entire government wasn't behind the Nazi banker plot to have a coup against FDR. A small factions was. Thankfully General Smedly Butler turned the tables on them. But what happened was purposefully covered up for years. The truth, based on the best available evidence at this point, is that not only did the hijackers have help from Saudi Arabia. Not only did they have help from people working inside the United States. But the also had help from people inside the government itself. FBI agents were told to back off the Bin Ladens. Cowleen Rowley was blocked by justice department lawyers from getting access to Zacharias Moussoui's laptop. The proper procedure for those lawyers would have been to argue for access to the laptop to the FISA court and let a judge decide whether there or not there was probable cause for a search warrant. And then there is the testimony of Michael Springman. When he worked at the consulate in Jeddah Saudi Arabia he discovered that the CIA was routinely shepherding suspicious Saudi nationals through the "Visa express" program. Ultimately most of the hijackers ended up coming through Jeddah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSebMjd50u0&nohtml5=False

There is also absolutely no denying the fact that the 1993 WTC bombing was carried out by an agent of the FBI. Emad Salem was going to be sent up the river by the FBI in the aftermath of the bombing until he provided audio tape proof that the FBI not only knew he was going to use real explosives but also demanded that he do so! And yet, there is no record of anyone in the FBI ever being prosecuted or even investigated for what appears to be a clear act of treason on the worst case and negligent homicide in the best case. (Seven people died in that bombing).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWKbbNKuc8&nohtml5=False

Now I know you know all of this because it's been talked about here ad nauseum. I also know that you know that nobody is saying "The entire government" did 9/11. I'm posting this for the benefit for someone who might not be familiar with all of the facts. Bottom line, MIHOP truthers state that a faction within the government helped carry out 9/11. LIHOP truthers state that a faction within the government ran interference to allow it to happen without being actively involved themselves. There is nobody on the planet that blames the entire U.S. government for 9/11. Hell, Ron Paul was still in congress at the time and so he was technically part of "the government."

[Jan2017]

. . . When he worked at the consulate in Jeddah Saudi Arabia he discovered that the CIA was routinely shepherding suspicious Saudi nationals through the "Visa express" program. Ultimately most of the hijackers ended up coming through Jeddah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSebMjd50u0&nohtml5=False




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU


Springman : "the 15 of the 19 hijackers getting visas from the CIA's consulate in Jeddah"

[jmdrake]

I would rep you if I could.


CBS reports, Graham and his Joint Inquiry co-chair in the House, former Representative Porter Goss (R-FL) — who went on to be director of the CIA — say the 28 pages were excised from their report by the Bush Administration in the interest of national security. Graham wouldn’t discuss the classified contents, but says the 28 pages outline a network of people he believes supported hijackers in the U.S. He tells Steve Kroft he believes the hijackers were “substantially” supported by Saudi Arabia. Asked if the support was from government, rich people or charities, the former senator replies, “all of the above.”

It's interesting that Goss and Graham are the ones pushing this. Yet at the same time they aren't talking about the Pakistani connection. I wonder why?

Indian intelligence proved that the Pakistani ISI chief, General Mahmud Ahmed, wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the months prior to 9/11.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-helped-FBI-trace-ISI-terrorist-links/articleshow/1454238160.cms?referral=PM

And yet there was no mention of that in the 9/11 commission report, unless it's in the 28 pages. But guess who Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with on 9/11? Why it was the same General Mahmud Ahmed that wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the months prior to 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/politics/04INQU.html?todaysheadlines

So sure. Graham and Goss are pushing for part of the truth to come out. But are they willing for all of the truth to come out?

[Zippyjuan]

And yet there was no mention of that in the 9/11 commission report, unless it's in the 28 pages. But guess who Porter Goss and Bob Graham were having breakfast with on 9/11? Why it was the same General Mahmud Ahmed that wired $100,000 to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta in the months prior to 9/11.

The 28 pages weren't part of the 9/11 Commission report. They come from a report on US intelligence at the time- " Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001". This is a mistake many are making when they talk about the "missing pages".

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's important to remember that believing that we were not told the whole truth is entirely different from asserting that our government blew up the buildings.

Semantics.

I am convinced, and have been for well over a decade now that:

a) Highly placed people within the US government knew exactly, but exactly, the who, what, when and where of the 9/11 plan.

b) These same highly placed people within government acted, with malice, to deliberately, willfully and purposefully thwart attempts to block, investigate, arrest, or deny entry to the people responsible.

c) That therefore, these people within government, some of whom are well known, some remain nameless, are as guilty, under their own laws of conspiracy and collusion, as the people that actually carried out the attacks.

The US government has a long and sordid history of well documented past examples of the exact same sort of criminal malfeasance.

I remain convinced that is what on 9/11 and those events would not have occurred without the willful action of people on the inside.

[jmdrake]

The 28 pages weren't part of the 9/11 Commission report. They come from a report on US intelligence at the time- " Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001". This is a mistake many are making when they talk about the "missing pages".

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. So the fact that Indian intelligence proved that Mahmud Ahmed, the man meeting with Graham and Goss on 9/11, was the money man to fund the attacks is missing form the " Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" and the 9/11 commission report, unless it's in the 28 pages. Either way, Goss and Graham don't seem too keen to finger Mahmud Ahmed for his known roll in the 9/11 attacks even as they are pushing to release information about the Saudis. One has to wonder why?

[presence]

this belongs in hot topics, you're all reported

[jmdrake]

this belongs in hot topics, you're all reported

LOL. Seriously though it's time to shut down hot topics or at least issue an official statement that "conspiracy theories" no longer belong in HT. Maybe keep HT for talk about the libertarian position on incest or underage sex. Right now the leading (though dropping) GOP candidate has openly questioned 9/11 and to a much greater extent than Ron Paul ever was willing to go and some of the anti truther gatekeepers are big time Trump boosters. Clearly this isn't an issue that can be construed to hurt Ron (who's no longer running for anything) or Rand (who's far less associated with 9/11 truth than is Trump).

[phill4paul]

Semantics.

I am convinced, and have been for well over a decade now that:

a) Highly placed people within the US government knew exactly, but exactly, the who, what, when and where of the 9/11 plan.

b) These same highly placed people within government acted, with malice, to deliberately, willfully and purposefully thwart attempts to block, investigate, arrest, or deny entry to the people responsible.

c) That therefore, these people within government, some of whom are well known, some remain nameless, are as guilty, under their own laws of conspiracy and collusion, as the people that actually carried out the attacks.

The US government has a long and sordid history of well documented past examples of the exact same sort of criminal malfeasance.

I remain convinced that is what on 9/11 and those events would not have occurred without the willful action of people on the inside.

^^^This.

Millions died because of cover-ups and lies. Period. Blood and treasure that reverberates even until today. I don't believe that Bush was a conspirator in this. I've never believed he was anything more than a chimp on a leash. But, there ARE individuals that are responsible. And the lies, the cover-ups and the media aping "conspiracy theorists, blargh, blargh" have allowed them to still walk among us. Secure in their position.

[Danke]

4904

[NewRightLibertarian]

History will vindicate the truthers, but by then, who will even care? Everyone will be so deep into the matrix at that point that they won't care about anything except drinking Brawndo. Hell, we are practically there now. After a generation of Common Core, the adults won't be able to tie their own shoes.

[Brian4Liberty]

Member of 9/11 Commission: We didn't have the time, we didn't have the resources, we didn't follow leads.

[enhanced_deficit]

Is there a connection between OP news and this news?

Paul Ryan travels to Israel, Saudi Arabia (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493602-Paul-Ryan-travels-to-Israel-Saudi-Arabia&)

That said, let's wait till investigations are completed and all the facts come out.

[UWDude]

The 28 pages weren't part of the 9/11 Commission report. They come from a report on US intelligence at the time- " Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001". This is a mistake many are making when they talk about the "missing pages".
Technically, no they weren't part of the 9/11 commission report, because they were taken out of the 9/11 commission report.

What's your point?

[angelatc]

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States,” says Graham in the clip.

That is not the same as saying that the government, or even someone in the government, orchestrated it.

[Ronin Truth]

That is not the same as saying that the government, or even someone in the government, orchestrated it.

Does a coverup make it complicit, after the fact? LIHOP could just be looking the other way.

[angelatc]

Does a coverup make it complicit, after the fact? LIHOP could just be looking the other way.

I do not doubt there is a cover up of some sort, but I do not think the government intentionally allowed it to happen, and I certainly do not think that the government orchestrated it.

I like to think that if those pages showed direct evidence of a government connection that one of the many people pushing for the release would be man enough to stand up and say so, even if it meant getting arrested. If that's not the case, then we're screwed no matter what happens from here on out.

[vita3]

Happy that 60 minutes ran this piece & it was fairly well done.

Saudi Goverment direct involvement is one part of the 911 operation. (Turkey, Israel & Bush family connections are another..)

Keep in mind that the current Saudi Monarch is off the rails, Warring big time with little neighbor Yemen & STILL heavily supporting the jihads inside Syria.

US has come to our senses & realizes Assad is best option.

Obama has to go to Saudi Arabia in 10 days & I believe this 60 minute piece & 28 page intelligence report, is leverage.

[Ronin Truth]

I do not doubt there is a cover up of some sort, but I do not think the government intentionally allowed it to happen, and I certainly do not think that the government orchestrated it.

I like to think that if those pages showed direct evidence of a government connection that one of the many people pushing for the release would be man enough to stand up and say so, even if it meant getting arrested. If that's not the case, then we're screwed no matter what happens from here on out.

Lots of folks agree with you. ;) :)

[undergroundrr]

Obama has to go to Saudi Arabia in 10 days & I believe this 60 minute piece & 28 page intelligence report, is leverage.

Good point.

[jbauer]

this belongs in hot topics, you're all reported

If we were in Germany, we'd all be locked up by now.

[jmdrake]

That is not the same as saying that the government, or even someone in the government, orchestrated it.


I do not doubt there is a cover up of some sort, but I do not think the government intentionally allowed it to happen, and I certainly do not think that the government orchestrated it.

I like to think that if those pages showed direct evidence of a government connection that one of the many people pushing for the release would be man enough to stand up and say so, even if it meant getting arrested. If that's not the case, then we're screwed no matter what happens from here on out.

So do you believe that there is not now, and never has been, anyone ever on the payroll of the U.S. government that seeks to harm Americans or is willing to do so to achieve some greater aim? Because history, going all the way back to the American revolutionary war, proves you wrong. More recently, the 1993 WTC bombing was under the direct operational control of people withing the FBI. That instructed the bomber to use real explosives. That's not up for debate. When it comes to 9/11, there is clear indisputable evidence of interference by people inside the government with pre-attack investigations that could have prevented 9/11. Case in point is the U.S. justice department lawyers who blocked Cowleen Rowley from submitting a request to the FISA court to inspect Moussoui's laptop. I emphasize the world lawyer because it shows they were not following their proper role. As lawyers for the government they should have been advocating to the FISA court that Rowley be granted access and it should have been up to the court to make the final decision if there was a constitutional problem, which their wasn't. And then there's testimony of Michael Springman that the CIA was using Jeddah Saudi Arabia to allow questionable young men to be cleared for entry into the U.S. Some of the hijackers came through Jeddah. When Springman complained he was relieved of that post.

The 28 pages are merely the tip of the iceberg, but they prove the iceberg indeed exists. Accessory after the fact is a crime. And Bush helping the Bin Laden family to escape post 9/11 is accessory after the fact. Also what usually gets criminals caught, especially on these high level types of crimes, isn't the crime itself but the cover up. Richard Nixon went down because of the cover up. Al Capone went down because of the cover up. But even in exposing the cover up, more cover up is happening. Goss and Graham are pushing the Saudi connection but covering up the Pakistani connection.....probably because they are connected to it.

[69360]

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States,” says Graham in the clip.



I don't think so. Only the pilots needed to speak english or be intelligent. The others were just muscle. Hijacking a plane wasn't much of a complicated task pre-911. It really wasn't a complicated task at the time, LE just figured a hijacked plane would be flown somewhere and land. So not much security was in place to stop it. The idea of an airliner as a WMD wasn't on the radar, no pun intended.

On the other hand, I think the accusation that the Saudi government and Royals had a hand in 9/11 is plausible.

[Zippyjuan]

Technically, no they weren't part of the 9/11 commission report, because they were taken out of the 9/11 commission report.

What's your point?

Two completely different reports by different groups looking at different things. The "Joint inquiry" looked into what the intelligence community did and the 9/11 Commission looked into what happened overall. The 9/11 Commission met after this report was compiled.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages


Immediately after the Joint Congressional Inquiry finished its report, in late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—better known as the 9/11 Commission—began its work, under the leadership of Thomas Kean, the former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana.

[JK/SEA]

Two completely different reports by different groups looking at different things. The "Joint inquiry" looked into the intelligence community and the 9/11 Commission looked into what happened. The 9/11 Commission met after this report was compiled.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

heh...similar to the way 'law enforcement' investigates wrong doing in their own departments...

but in this case...911 was an inside job...

[phill4paul]

I don't think so. Only the pilots needed to speak english or be intelligent. The others were just muscle. Hijacking a plane wasn't much of a complicated task pre-911. It really wasn't a complicated task at the time, LE just figured a hijacked plane would be flown somewhere and land. So not much security was in place to stop it. The idea of an airliner as a WMD wasn't on the radar, no pun intended.

On the other hand, I think the accusation that the Saudi government and Royals had a hand in 9/11 is plausible.

It should have been on the radar. It wasn't like it was a new concept...


Clancy had in fact written a book called Debt of Honor, released in 1994, that included a plotline of a suicide pilot deliberately crashing a Boeing 747 into the US Capitol building (see August 17, 1994). Presumably influenced by this book, Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) had outlined a similar scenario the following year, which he’d said was “not far-fetched” (see April 3, 1995). Some commentators will later refer to Clancy’s book when criticizing official claims of surprise at the nature of the 9/11 attacks. Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was in the Pentagon when it was struck, will write, “I thought most people in the military read Tom Clancy novels in the 1990s. And yet, military leaders and spokespersons consistently expressed shock and surprise at such a possibility.… Was Tom Clancy really more savvy than the entire Pentagon?” [GRIFFIN AND SCOTT, 2006, PP. 27] Newsday columnist James Pinkerton later comments, “insofar as Clancy is one of the best-selling authors in the country with a particularly large following among military types, it’s a depressing commentary on military intelligence that Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could say, a month [after 9/11], to the American Forces Radio and Television Service, ‘You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.’” [NEWSDAY, 5/20/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a94clancybook

[donnay]

I don't think so. Only the pilots needed to speak english or be intelligent. The others were just muscle. Hijacking a plane wasn't much of a complicated task pre-911. It really wasn't a complicated task at the time, LE just figured a hijacked plane would be flown somewhere and land. So not much security was in place to stop it. The idea of an airliner as a WMD wasn't on the radar, no pun intended.

On the other hand, I think the accusation that the Saudi government and Royals had a hand in 9/11 is plausible.



On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think so. Only the pilots needed to speak english or be intelligent. The others were just muscle. Hijacking a plane wasn't much of a complicated task pre-911. It really wasn't a complicated task at the time, LE just figured a hijacked plane would be flown somewhere and land. So not much security was in place to stop it. The idea of an airliner as a WMD wasn't on the radar, no pun intended.

On the other hand, I think the accusation that the Saudi government and Royals had a hand in 9/11 is plausible.

Well, there's no point in re-hashing everything now, all I can say is I do not make that claim lightly.

(No point in this regard: nobody but us kooks care one way or the other. 95 percent of Idiot AmeriKa can't recall or care what they had for fucking breakfast, let alone the political machinations and corruption behind an event that happened 15 years ago.)

There are more than a couple of instances where the hijackers crossed government's radar, and were ignored, deliberately.

Given that, and this government's track record in pulling off the exact same kind of operation, convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt.

Your mileage may vary.

[Anti Federalist]

heh...similar to the way 'law enforcement' investigates wrong doing in their own departments...

but in this case...911 was an inside job...

Why do you hate AmeriKa?

Why do you not trust our brave government officers?

They would never lie.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

"Without the video I would be in prison. There is no doubt about that."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/video-clears-texas-man-of-assaulting-cop-did-police-commit-perjury/

[UWDude]

Two completely different reports by different groups looking at different things. The "Joint inquiry" looked into what the intelligence community did and the 9/11 Commission looked into what happened overall. The 9/11 Commission met after this report was compiled.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

Yes, and the 28 pages never made it into the 9/11 commission report.

You are trying to obfuscate the big picture with pointless details. You are arguing about nothing with me. What you are saying is, as always, irrelevant.

Everyone knows the Patriots didn't make it into the super bowl. But you are arguing they didn't because they didn't win all their playoff games... ..like... yeah, dumbass... we know... dumbass... that's why they weren't in the Superbowl. You're not making any point whatsoever.