ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 , 9/11 hijackers , Al-Qaeda

Reply
Old 21st October 2019, 01:44 PM   #1
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,046
Where was 9/11 plotted? Germany? Afghanistan? Pakistan?

What about Saudi Arabia and the UAE - were there individuals in those countries who “steered” people (hijackers) and funds toward the plot? What about Yemen and the “switchboard?” Or the Southeast Asia meetings?

What about individuals in the United States itself?
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 01:47 PM   #2
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
What about the Jews? What about aliens? What about alien Jews? What about alien Jews with limps?

For the love of God, think of the children!
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 01:48 PM   #3
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,046
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What about the Jews? What about aliens? What about alien Jews? What about alien Jews with limps?

For the love of God, think of the children!
No.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 02:08 PM   #4
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
According to testimonies made from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed (KSM) and Ramzi bin al-Shibh to Al Jazeera reporter, Yosri Fouda, the planning came from KSM which ten planes were to be hijacked, with 9 crashing into targets and the final plane piloted by KSM himself where all the men were to be slaughtered with women and children surviving as the plane touches down and he gives a media interview to why the operation took place. The idea of hijacking planes and crashing them into U.S targets came from Bojinka Plot, which had 4 phases to it and was an international terrorist operation constructed by Ramzi Yousef, KSM nephew and KSM himself with additional fundraisers financing the plot, which didnt materialize. The 9/11 operation had numerous fundraisers from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan but their links have been "covered up" by elements within the State Department who have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:14 PM   #5
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,722
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
According to testimonies made from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed (KSM) and Ramzi bin al-Shibh to Al Jazeera reporter, Yosri Fouda, the planning came from KSM which ten planes were to be hijacked, with 9 crashing into targets and the final plane piloted by KSM himself where all the men were to be slaughtered with women and children surviving as the plane touches down and he gives a media interview to why the operation took place. The idea of hijacking planes and crashing them into U.S targets came from Bojinka Plot, which had 4 phases to it and was an international terrorist operation constructed by Ramzi Yousef, KSM nephew and KSM himself with additional fundraisers financing the plot, which didnt materialize. The 9/11 operation had numerous fundraisers from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan but their links have been "covered up" by elements within the State Department who have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Evidence?
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:26 PM   #6
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Yes, the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry. It is still redacted in some areas. Not to mention, Zelikow who headed the 9/11 Commission doesnt want the document unredacted for public view.

" Philip D. Zelikow, who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and has read the pages, thinks they should remains secret. Now a professor of history at the University of Virginia, Zelikow compared the 28 pages to grand jury testimony and raw police interviews—full of unproven facts, rumors and innuendo. If the government did decide to make them public, he said, "hundreds, if not thousands" of additional pages of interviews would also likely need to be declassified."

https://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabi...tan-bob-297170

Not to mention the two Saudi Intelligence officials, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan who financed two of the American Airlines Flight 77 hijackers, were never arrested nor detained inside the United States by the FBI. They were in fact even interviewed by the 9/11 Commission in Saudi Arabia, and both men denied ever knowing al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi yet these men and their wives received money from U.S-Saudi Ambassador wife, Haifa bint Faisal, which were given to al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in 2000 and 2001.

"“On at least one occasion,” the report says, “Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar.”

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/...nd-in-911.html
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:38 PM   #7
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Evidence?

Truthers don't do evidence....real evidence at any rate.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:42 PM   #8
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,722
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Yes, the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry. It is still redacted in some areas. Not to mention, Zelikow who headed the 9/11 Commission doesnt want the document unredacted for public view.

" Philip D. Zelikow, who was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and has read the pages, thinks they should remains secret. Now a professor of history at the University of Virginia, Zelikow compared the 28 pages to grand jury testimony and raw police interviews—full of unproven facts, rumors and innuendo. If the government did decide to make them public, he said, "hundreds, if not thousands" of additional pages of interviews would also likely need to be declassified."

https://www.newsweek.com/saudi-arabi...tan-bob-297170

Not to mention the two Saudi Intelligence officials, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan who financed two of the American Airlines Flight 77 hijackers, were never arrested nor detained inside the United States by the FBI. They were in fact even interviewed by the 9/11 Commission in Saudi Arabia, and both men denied ever knowing al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi yet these men and their wives received money from U.S-Saudi Ambassador wife, Haifa bint Faisal, which were given to al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi in 2000 and 2001.

"“On at least one occasion,” the report says, “Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar.”

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/...nd-in-911.html
Interesting stuff, but none of it is evidence of a "cover up by elements within the State Department"

Try harder!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:44 PM   #9
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Truthers don't do evidence....real evidence at any rate.
Didn't know i was a "truther". And i do provide additional information for things i post if asked.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 05:49 PM   #10
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Interesting stuff, but none of it is evidence of a "cover up by elements within the State Department"

Try harder!
Well if you dont consider redacted information which shows Saudi funding coming straight from the U.S-Saudi Ambassador (Bandan bin Sultan) in which was never investigated in the first place...not to mention Zelikows own admission that the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry should remain redacted from public view.....then i dont know what else to tell you.

Even just weeks ago, they are still covering up key Saudi financiers of the 9/11 attacks so that the 91/1 victims families lawsuits against the Kingdom cannot hold them accountable. This is public information but then again if you are a staunch defender of either side, you will only look at information which suits your narrative.

"The Trump administration decided Thursday to declassify a key name long sought by relatives of 9/11 victims who are suing Saudi Arabia over allegations of that country's involvement, but declined to release the name publicly."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-suit-n1053201
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:26 PM   #11
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Didn't know i was a "truther". And i do provide additional information for things i post if asked.

Okay. Then let me be the first to tell you: you are a truther.


*15 years ago, I was having frequent bouts of thirst and equally frequent elimination of the water. On a recommendation from my cousin, I went to an endocrinologist. She asked, "How long have you been diabetic?" I answered, "That's the thing. Nobody has actually told me I'm diabetic." And she replied, "Okay, you're diabetic."
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:28 PM   #12
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Okay. Then let me be the first to tell you: you are a truther.


*15 years ago, I was having frequent bouts of thirst and equally frequent elimination of the water. On a recommendation from my cousin, I went to an endocrinologist. She asked, "How long have you been diabetic?" I answered, "That's the thing. Nobody has actually told me I'm diabetic." And she replied, "Okay, you're diabetic."
What is your definition of a "truther" in this context.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:47 PM   #13
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,722
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Well if you dont consider redacted information which shows Saudi funding coming straight from the U.S-Saudi Ambassador (Bandan bin Sultan) in which was never investigated in the first place...not to mention Zelikows own admission that the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry should remain redacted from public view.....then i dont know what else to tell you.
Question: If its redacted, how do you know what is behind the black ink?

Answer: Pure speculation on your part.

Question: How do you know that information is not redacted for reasons other then those you are guessing at, for example, to protect sources, or assets, or innocent third parties?

Answer: You don't, and nor do I, and nor does anyone who does not have a sufficiently high security clearance.

Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Even just weeks ago, they are still covering up key Saudi financiers of the 9/11 attacks so that the 91/1 victims families lawsuits against the Kingdom cannot hold them accountable. This is public information but then again if you are a staunch defender of either side, you will only look at information which suits your narrative.

"The Trump administration decided Thursday to declassify a key name long sought by relatives of 9/11 victims who are suing Saudi Arabia over allegations of that country's involvement, but declined to release the name publicly."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-suit-n1053201
In conspiracy world, "redacted" automatically means "cover up".

In the real world, they do not. There are never valid reasons for a cover up, but there are perfectly valid reasons for information to be redacted.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:01 PM   #14
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Question: If its redacted, how do you know what is behind the black ink?

Answer: Pure speculation on your part.

Question: How do you know that information is not redacted for reasons other then those you are guessing at, for example, to protect sources, or assets, or innocent third parties?

Answer: You don't, and nor do I, and nor does anyone who does not have a sufficiently high security clearance.



In conspiracy world, "redacted" automatically means "cover up".

In the real world, they do not. There are never valid reasons for a cover up, but there are perfectly valid reasons for information to be redacted.

How do you know that information is not redacted for reasons other then those you are guessing at, for example, to protect sources, or assets, or innocent third parties?

This information which is redacted in the Joint Inquiry was asked to be cleared for public view so that the 9/11 victims families, whom is suing the Saudi Kingdom for the 9/11 attacks, can be used in NY District Court. Its why i posted that link so you can read it yourself. The State department will not make it publicly view-able. Its quite clear from the JASTA Act what the goal to making all information public is seen here:

"Kreindler & Kreindler, however, will file suit against Saudi Arabia on behalf of all injured persons and will seek to prove that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should be held responsible for aiding, abetting and sponsoring the attacks and should be made to pay for all the injuries that flowed from its conduct."

https://www.kreindler.com/9-11-Terro...rism-Act.shtml

"In conspiracy world, "redacted" automatically means "cover up". Yes, maybe if you were talking to a conspiracy theorist, one of which im not a part of sir. Im a skeptic of the events of September 11th. Nothing and nowhere in any of my posts do i delve into the "fantastical". Yes there is a cover up happening here in regards to the Saudi Kingdom and the State Department, even Bob Graham, co chair of the Joint Inquiry admits this everywhere he speaks. To Graham he doesn't use "cover-up" anymore, he labels it "aggressive deception".

"So could you explain particularly this last couple of sentences, “Primarily before the event. After the event, it shifts from being an action that supports the activities to Saudis to actions that cover up the results of that permission given to the Saudis to act”? So can you elaborate on that?"

Bob Graham: "Well, and I’ll get to the why question: why would the U.S. government have done this? And let me say, I no longer use the words cover up to describe what’s going on. I find more accurate the words aggressive deception. The federal government has attempted to rewrite the narrative of 9/11 in order to exclude the role of the Saudis from that horrific story.

Why did they do it? I think there are a number of reasons. Some of them relate to the longtime, special, personal relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Kingdom–goes back three generations to Herbert Walker Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, a senator from Connecticut.

I think it also involves the long relationship that started in World War II when the United States essentially committed to provide security to the Saudis. The Saudis committed to provide a reliable source of petroleum to the United States and its allies.

And I think there’s another issue here. And that is, if you’ll recall, at the World Trade Center after 9/11, the president, with a bullhorn, said words to the effect that we are going to follow anyone who was found to have been in any way connected to this murder and that we will follow them to the ends of the earth–pretty strong words. And certainly, shortly thereafter, much of the information that you have outlined became available to the president.

Problem: the president wanted to go to war with Iraq, and he has painted at the site of the crime a path that looks like it’s going directly to the Saudis, but that’s not the destination he wants. So what do you do? You have to suppress all the information that would cause people to think that the Saudis were the people that he was talking about with the bullhorn at the World Trade Center and get the country prepared and willing to go to war against a country which was subsequently found out to have virtually, if not totally, nothing to do with 9/11."

https://therealnews.com/stories/sen-...attacks-pt-1-2
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:06 PM   #15
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,032
1. That some Saudis gave money to Al Qaeda has been known since 9/12/2001.

2. There are 15,000 members of the Saudi Royal family.

3. Bin Laden was a millionaire as were other Al Qaeda members.

One of Al Qaeda's long term goals was the removal of the Saudi royal family from power in Saudi Arabia so that it would assume control. The question I'd love to ask those Saudi's who donated money to Al Qaeda was how much did they know about Al Qaeda's ultimate objectives? Did they hope to step into a ruling position after Al Qaeda took over?

The bigger question is did the Saudi donors know they were helping to fund an attack on the United States?

Saudis are window dressing. The fact is that Al Qaeda gets its money from a diverse illegal financial operation:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_disser...s/RGSD185.html

The ugly fact is that even if tomorrow we find out the King of Saudi Arabia financed and knew about the attacks of 911 in detail the United States isn't going to sever ties, or impose sanctions, or stop selling weapons, or hesitate to come their defense if Iran should threaten.

And that is the bottom line.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:14 PM   #16
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
1. That some Saudis gave money to Al Qaeda has been known since 9/12/2001.

2. There are 15,000 members of the Saudi Royal family.

3. Bin Laden was a millionaire as were other Al Qaeda members.

One of Al Qaeda's long term goals was the removal of the Saudi royal family from power in Saudi Arabia so that it would assume control. The question I'd love to ask those Saudi's who donated money to Al Qaeda was how much did they know about Al Qaeda's ultimate objectives? Did they hope to step into a ruling position after Al Qaeda took over?

The bigger question is did the Saudi donors know they were helping to fund an attack on the United States?

Saudis are window dressing. The fact is that Al Qaeda gets its money from a diverse illegal financial operation:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_disser...s/RGSD185.html

The ugly fact is that even if tomorrow we find out the King of Saudi Arabia financed and knew about the attacks of 911 in detail the United States isn't going to sever ties, or impose sanctions, or stop selling weapons, or hesitate to come their defense if Iran should threaten.

And that is the bottom line.
This comment in bold is an absolute certainty, due to the fact the United States gas and oil companies and other Congressional members are profiting from their oil reserves and due to the fact that the Saudi Lobby donates tens of millions to Congress annually, the Saudi Lobby is also the oldest Foreign Lobby which donates the most money as well.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:18 PM   #17
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Problem: the president wanted to go to war with Iraq, and he has painted at the site of the crime a path that looks like it’s going directly to the Saudis, but that’s not the destination he wants. So what do you do? You have to suppress all the information that would cause people to think that the Saudis were the people that he was talking about with the bullhorn at the World Trade Center and get the country prepared and willing to go to war against a country which was subsequently found out to have virtually, if not totally, nothing to do with 9/11."
Old theory. Doesn't hold water.

1. Most average Americans wanted to "finish the job" in Iraq. If you walked into any bar in any of the 50 states between 1992 and 2002 you would have heard someone droning on and on about how we should have kicked Saddam's *** in 1991, especially after they'd take shots at our planes patrolling the No-Fly Zone.

2. After 911 American's wanted blood. We didn't care whose blood. If they so much as looked at us sideways and had a Middle Eastern accent we were more than happy to bomb the crap out of them.

3. Iraq looked at us sideways.

And by the way, our invasion of Iraq is consistent with the "CIA Let It Happen" crowd's vision of over-reacting to a remote and unproven threat based solely on past events.

The US and Saudi Arabia have been allies since 1951. There were only a total of 12 years with a Bush in the White House. Our ties with the Kingdom run deep, 911 isn't even the most evil thing we've helped them cover up.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:27 PM   #18
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Old theory. Doesn't hold water.

1. Most average Americans wanted to "finish the job" in Iraq. If you walked into any bar in any of the 50 states between 1992 and 2002 you would have heard someone droning on and on about how we should have kicked Saddam's *** in 1991, especially after they'd take shots at our planes patrolling the No-Fly Zone.

2. After 911 American's wanted blood. We didn't care whose blood. If they so much as looked at us sideways and had a Middle Eastern accent we were more than happy to bomb the crap out of them.

3. Iraq looked at us sideways.

And by the way, our invasion of Iraq is consistent with the "CIA Let It Happen" crowd's vision of over-reacting to a remote and unproven threat based solely on past events.

The US and Saudi Arabia have been allies since 1951. There were only a total of 12 years with a Bush in the White House. Our ties with the Kingdom run deep, 911 isn't even the most evil thing we've helped them cover up.
Im in agreement with most everything you stated here. Most people don't realize the depth of U.S-Saudi relations or how far back it goes. even thou we are so diametrically opposed in regards to how are countries formed. It begs the question however, how much further can our disregard for human life go, in order to protect, irresponsibly, our connection to Saudi Oil and its Lobby annual funding. I suspect quite low as this point. never could understand how people do not accept the United States is morally lacking when it comes to our elected government.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:30 PM   #19
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,255
what's the most evil thing U.S. has helped S.A. cover up.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:58 PM   #20
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
what's the most evil thing U.S. has helped S.A. cover up.
The only way I can answer this is to say that Jeffrey Epstein was small-time. And look up Saudi Arabia and slavery sometime.

And for decades there have been stories like this:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/five-s...n-before-trial
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:22 PM   #21
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Yes, maybe if you were talking to a conspiracy theorist, one of which im not a part of sir

Yeah, dude, you are.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:25 PM   #22
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Yeah, dude, you are.
If you have nothing to add, maybe you should say nothing. If you think there is anything i said which is incorrect...by all means, correct me.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 02:20 AM   #23
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,489
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
never could understand how people do not accept the United States is morally lacking when it comes to our elected government basic human rights.
FTFY.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 04:45 AM   #24
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
If you have nothing to add, maybe you should say nothing. If you think there is anything i said which is incorrect...by all means, correct me.

You've been corrected. Your basic premise is wrong: redacted information does not mean information embarrassing to the government. Information may be redacted to protect intelligence assets, to protect innocent third parties, and other reasons. Since the 9/11 Report, there have been two administrations and three Democratic challengers: Keery, Obama (who was President for 8 years), and Hillary Clinton. If W.'s regime tried to pull some nonsense, all of these people had the chance to expose it - effectively killing Republican chances of ever winning the White House completely. And, in fact, all three of those individuals would eventually be in the position to see all of the documentation unredacted.

You're just injecting fantasy into blank spaces the way your brain injects dreams into your head when you go to sleep and deprive it of input. That's not being a skeptic. A skeptic believes that for which there is evidence. You're claiming a lack of evidence leads to a preferred belief. That's trutherism. You're a truther.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 07:36 AM   #25
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You've been corrected. Your basic premise is wrong: redacted information does not mean information embarrassing to the government. Information may be redacted to protect intelligence assets, to protect innocent third parties, and other reasons. Since the 9/11 Report, there have been two administrations and three Democratic challengers: Keery, Obama (who was President for 8 years), and Hillary Clinton. If W.'s regime tried to pull some nonsense, all of these people had the chance to expose it - effectively killing Republican chances of ever winning the White House completely. And, in fact, all three of those individuals would eventually be in the position to see all of the documentation unredacted.

You're just injecting fantasy into blank spaces the way your brain injects dreams into your head when you go to sleep and deprive it of input. That's not being a skeptic. A skeptic believes that for which there is evidence. You're claiming a lack of evidence leads to a preferred belief. That's trutherism. You're a truther.
"You've been corrected Your basic premise is wrong: redacted information does not mean information embarrassing to the government. Information may be redacted to protect intelligence assets, to protect innocent third parties, and other reasons."

Which is false, since no one here has corrected anything i posted in regards to the redacted areas of the 28 pages. Its plain as day, right in front of your very own eyes and even from the mouth of Bob Graham himself, that there was a deliberate effort to keep Saudi Arabia from being sued/held responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

" If W.'s regime tried to pull some nonsense, all of these people had the chance to expose it"

False. Meanwhile the Democratic base was far worse in terms of using the U.S military to destablize the Middle East, as well as using the Intelligence Community to expand on its services against the citizenry of the United States here and abroad. Obama himself added to the war in the Middle East by bombing Syria, Libya and kept troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is no different than Bush, as all these politicians answer to the Pentagon and Foreign Lobby institutes. The real powers. Its ignorant folk such as yourself who are no different than say those you despise "truthers" who defend a certain narrative and ar unmoved by evidence.

"You're just injecting fantasy into blank spaces the way your brain injects dreams into your head when you go to sleep and deprive it of input. That's not being a skeptic. A skeptic believes that for which there is evidence. You're claiming a lack of evidence leads to a preferred belief."

Nothing i said, was fictional actually. In fact nothing you said "ever" to me on here was even coherent. Now if you had anything, and i mean anything, to contradict any of my points made above you would have done it already to show where im wrong. Again, i ask you, point out to anything where im wrong and lets discuss it coherently. Or maybe you should refrain from even posting in the first place if all you have is false innuendos.

Plus i'm not even adding the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency also withheld information from the FBI at Alec Station which would have had Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi monitored and or detained by authorities inside the United States. Tenet basically committed perjury before the Joint Inquiry in regards to who read information at Alec Station as well. Sow e have a "cover-up" in regards to the CIA as well. Not to mention the Bush Administration didnt even want an independent inquiry to investigate the 9/11 attacks to begin with.

Last edited by Adam Fitzgerald; 22nd October 2019 at 08:08 AM.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 10:54 AM   #26
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,901
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
as all these politicians answer to the Pentagon and Foreign Lobby institutes.

See, that would be an example of you injecting your own fantasies into a narrative that doesn't need them.

The CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA and INS didn't effectively share information, that's true. But that was the whole point of the 9/11 report - it identified intelligence failures. In the intervening years, they've developed ways of pooling information, to the point where INS doesn't even exist anymore. That was one of the weaknesses the hijackers exploited.

You assigning some sort of motive to it all is just speculation at best. And your willingness to create your own story marks you as a truther.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2019, 12:47 PM   #27
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
See, that would be an example of you injecting your own fantasies into a narrative that doesn't need them.

The CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA and INS didn't effectively share information, that's true. But that was the whole point of the 9/11 report - it identified intelligence failures. In the intervening years, they've developed ways of pooling information, to the point where INS doesn't even exist anymore. That was one of the weaknesses the hijackers exploited.

You assigning some sort of motive to it all is just speculation at best. And your willingness to create your own story marks you as a truther.
You are repeating yourself here. Im not interjecting anything, the mere fact that you simply cannot grasp (which isnt my problem) is that there are two foreign Lobbys which have major influences in our government in both Partys, The Israeli and Saudi (Arab) Lobby. Yes, they do have wide influences on how our Foreign Policy is governed. Wether you accept this or not, matters not. But im not expecting any actual productive dialogue with you here, i will continue to ignore your petty insinuations. You share more qualities with those of the Jim Fetzer crowd the quasi-truthers i call them with your inane posts.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 07:06 PM   #28
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,285
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
You are repeating yourself here. Im not interjecting anything, the mere fact that you simply cannot grasp (which isnt my problem) is that there are two foreign Lobbys which have major influences in our government in both Partys, The Israeli and Saudi (Arab) Lobby. Yes, they do have wide influences on how our Foreign Policy is governed. Wether you accept this or not, matters not. But im not expecting any actual productive dialogue with you here, i will continue to ignore your petty insinuations. You share more qualities with those of the Jim Fetzer crowd the quasi-truthers i call them with your inane posts.
no body is like Jim Fetzer, you don't know Jim Fetzer - weak personal attack at that, a clownish attack, if you knew Fetzer


Yes, Saudis had to fund some of 9/11 murderers, the same as someone funded my college, or your college, or not. Does funding gullible idiots like 19 nut for UBL mean the funders knew the plot? Nope


BTW, now there are no rational lobbies, read the news, ask the Kurds about foreign policy

Is there a reason to redact that is not related to what you think, or are you lie trump, and want to go all french revolution on all

Are you talking NRA or russia/putin, with respect to foreign Lobbys(aka lobbies)/lobbies (maybe ...)
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 24th October 2019 at 07:06 PM. Reason: ad;lfka;lskdjfas;ldkf ;askldjf;asldfj; as dlfjadlfj;
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2019, 07:27 PM   #29
Adam Fitzgerald
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
no body is like Jim Fetzer, you don't know Jim Fetzer - weak personal attack at that, a clownish attack, if you knew Fetzer


Yes, Saudis had to fund some of 9/11 murderers, the same as someone funded my college, or your college, or not. Does funding gullible idiots like 19 nut for UBL mean the funders knew the plot? Nope


BTW, now there are no rational lobbies, read the news, ask the Kurds about foreign policy

Is there a reason to redact that is not related to what you think, or are you lie trump, and want to go all french revolution on all

Are you talking NRA or russia/putin, with respect to foreign Lobbys(aka lobbies)/lobbies (maybe ...)

Jim Fetzer is a remarkable fraud of the highest order. He doesnt believe planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. No children died at Sandy Hook. Yes i say again, he is an imbecile and fraud.
Adam Fitzgerald is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 03:54 PM   #30
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,970
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
Jim Fetzer is a remarkable fraud of the highest order. He doesnt believe planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. No children died at Sandy Hook. Yes i say again, he is an imbecile and fraud.
That he is and he's managed to fool academia and truthers!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 06:45 PM   #31
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Adam Fitzgerald View Post
"You've been corrected Your basic premise is wrong: redacted information does not mean information embarrassing to the government. Information may be redacted to protect intelligence assets, to protect innocent third parties, and other reasons."

Which is false, since no one here has corrected anything i posted in regards to the redacted areas of the 28 pages. Its plain as day, right in front of your very own eyes and even from the mouth of Bob Graham himself, that there was a deliberate effort to keep Saudi Arabia from being sued/held responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

" If W.'s regime tried to pull some nonsense, all of these people had the chance to expose it"
And yet everyone knows there was Saudi money going to Al Qaeda (probably still is), and even if they name those Saudis tomorrow our relationship with the Saudi Kingdom will not change for a long list of uncomfortable reasons chief of which is that Putin is happy to step in to the void we'd create by sanctioning the Saudis. Sure, it's nice to get names on the record but we won't do anything about it.


Quote:
False. Meanwhile the Democratic base was far worse in terms of using the U.S military to destablize the Middle East, as well as using the Intelligence Community to expand on its services against the citizenry of the United States here and abroad. Obama himself added to the war in the Middle East by bombing Syria, Libya and kept troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is no different than Bush, as all these politicians answer to the Pentagon and Foreign Lobby institutes. The real powers. Its ignorant folk such as yourself who are no different than say those you despise "truthers" who defend a certain narrative and ar unmoved by evidence.
This statement is devoid of context.

We were already in Saudi Arabia patrolling the No-Fly Zone on 9-11.

The "Intelligence Community" has less information on American citizens than what American citizens willingly give to Facebook, Twitter, and the companies who make a variety of apps for our smartphones. In the nearly 18 years since 2001 technology has evolved to the point where information acquired under surveillance is indistinguishable from information willingly given away.

Obama kept forces in Afghanistan because during his campaign he said that was where the fight was. He pulled our forces out of Iraq in August 2010 leaving behind a small logistical force. The Iraqi's asked us to return when the ISIL/ISIS threat overwhelmed their constantly worthless army. And yes, ISIS was formed at Abu Griab by AQI extremists in US custody.

Syria was the last link in the "Arab Spring" chain which began in Tunisia, spread to Egypt, and Lybia with mixed results. The Obama Administration got burned in Libya and dragged their feet in Syria until it was too late, and couldn't run the risk of sitting back and watching the Russian kill indiscriminately.

While it is in vogue to say that the US Government is in the pocket of powerful lobbyists the truth is that we can't just pick up and leave a war that we started. Even an unpopular one.


Quote:
Plus i'm not even adding the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency also withheld information from the FBI at Alec Station which would have had Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi monitored and or detained by authorities inside the United States. Tenet basically committed perjury before the Joint Inquiry in regards to who read information at Alec Station as well. Sow e have a "cover-up" in regards to the CIA as well.
We knew this on 9/12/2001. Hardly a revelation.

Quote:
Not to mention the Bush Administration didnt even want an independent inquiry to investigate the 9/11 attacks to begin with.
They felt it was a waste of time, and in a way it was since it didn't reveal anything we didn't already know. I point to the Hart/Rudman Commission who began their work in 1998 and published their report in late September, 2001, and the Report of the National Commission on Terrorism published in June, 2001. What we learned was that nobody in the relevant agencies read those reports, or took them seriously.

Plus you're claiming it was a white-wash which technically makes the Bush Admin right.

Plus, you have joined the long list of "researchers" continue to ignore the actions of Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who stole- AND DESTROYED - documents related to actions related to Al Qaeda. If you are looking for a SMOKING GUN this is where a SMART investigator would start. But no, you rail on the CIA and Bush, while here you have the man in charge of US National Security, the guy who read all the intel, the guy who directed actions taken by the CIA committing a federal crime to protect...what? Look, it's your right to hang out in the kiddie pool of those "seeking truth", but why is it too much to ask guys like you to step up their game and look into actual conspiracies to cover up actions taken by the Executive Branch in the late 1990's and not just start after January 20, 2001?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 27th October 2019 at 06:49 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 06:52 PM   #32
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,045
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
That he is and he's managed to fool academia and truthers!
Does anybody know when he really started to go off the rails? Was he involved in the CTs about OKC and Waco or JFK?

I ask because some of the older academic troofers had shown a few mild signs of excessive credulity in the past. David Ray Griffin, before he became the "guru" of the 9-11 Truthers, wrote a book on parapsychology. I remember in one passage he estimated (well, pulled out of his ass) that the odds were 50% that there was life after death. Steven Jones became interested in the Burrows Cave hoax shortly before he wrote the infamous What Indeed" paper.

Jones was also involved tangentially in the whole cold-fusion furor back in the 1980s; he was a researcher working on the concept himself and thus was chosen to peer-review the article the other team was submitting. There was some indication that Jones tried to get in on the credit for the research, but the whole thing blew up when the results couldn't be duplicated and Jones escaped with his reputation intact. Hilariously, some Truthers found out about the whole episode and claimed that Jones had stifled cold fusion.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 07:07 PM   #33
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,045
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And yet everyone knows there was Saudi money going to Al Qaeda (probably still is), and even if they name those Saudis tomorrow our relationship with the Saudi Kingdom will not change for a long list of uncomfortable reasons chief of which is that Putin is happy to step in to the void we'd create by sanctioning the Saudis. Sure, it's nice to get names on the record but we won't do anything about it.
Just a minor point about this. People seem to forget that Osama had cultivated an image of being a great fighter for Islam against the Russian imperialists. This, plus his father being one of the wealthiest non-royalty in Saudi Arabia, gave him huge credibility when he started his charity, which he called "Social Services." Millions of dollars a year flowed through Social Services, from many sources. This is the real reason why Kean noted the dollar amount being about $500,000 and saying it was impossible to trace. I'm assuming that none of the Saudi royals or other donors to Social Services wrote in the memo section of their check "for terrorism only."
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2019, 08:52 PM   #34
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Just a minor point about this. People seem to forget that Osama had cultivated an image of being a great fighter for Islam against the Russian imperialists. This, plus his father being one of the wealthiest non-royalty in Saudi Arabia, gave him huge credibility when he started his charity, which he called "Social Services." Millions of dollars a year flowed through Social Services, from many sources. This is the real reason why Kean noted the dollar amount being about $500,000 and saying it was impossible to trace. I'm assuming that none of the Saudi royals or other donors to Social Services wrote in the memo section of their check "for terrorism only."
Yes, this is correct.

In Afghanistan and the Sudan his men helped build, repair, or improve local roads. When bin Laden set up shop the first thing he did was set up a medical clinic for the locals. He could tell his Saudi donors that he was vaccinating kids, saving babies, and making it easier for small farmers to get their goods to market without lying about it. If you ask any of the surviving AQ leadership who split from the program in 2001 they'll tell you that bin Laden's obsession with the US ruined what could have been the most successful Islamic insurrection in history, even dwarfing the Iranian revolution.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 06:07 AM   #35
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,970
The struggle (jihad) seems to have given is 9/11

"Jihad (English: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ jihād [dʒɪˈhaːd]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with God's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, religious proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[7][8] In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad.[9][3] The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups."

Many cultures in history have tried to impose their beliefs on those they conquered militarily... The Christians are no angels here.

The question which needs to be addressed is why can't different cultures and religions co exist in close proximity?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2019, 05:27 PM   #36
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 130
Adam Fitzgerald,

I grasp that the redacted parts might well show evidence of SA guilt. Without seeing them there's no evidence that supports your claim that they surely must. Or course, the formerly-redacted-now-revealed parts of the 28 pages were gong to be a revelation would show, once and for all, that the truthers were correct, after all.

Indeed, had truthers concentrated on this sort of thing 18 years ago they might have been taken more seriously. SA involvement is not beyond the realm of possibility.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.