• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New evidence links Saudi Arabia to 9/11

Neally

Illuminator
N
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
3,671
I don't get it, 13 of the hijackers were Saudis, Bin Laden is a Saudi. AQ has ties and support from some people in Saudi Arabia. Therefore there were some Saudi people involved. What's the big mystery here, what cover up?
 
Question for the long time users of the forum:

When you see a thread in the 9/11 subforum, and it has the word "new" in it - typically how old is it?

2 years?
3?
4+ years?
 
carlitos said:
Neither Esam Ghazzawi or Abdulazzi al-Hiijjii show up using the search function here. Care to enlighten a late arrival to the subforum?
Click to expand...

The OP cites Graham's long standing position that Saudi Arabia (or members of the Royal family) were involved in 9/11. Finding two more characters to reinforce that belief may be new, but the "linkage" is not. Old news and nobody cares.
 
BCR said:
The OP cites Graham's long standing position that Saudi Arabia (or members of the Royal family) were involved in 9/11. Finding two more characters to reinforce that belief may be new, but the "linkage" is not. Old news and nobody cares.
Click to expand...


Did he ever explicitly call for a new investigation before? I don't think so.
 
I always sort of assumed that elements of the Saudi royal family were up to their eyeballs in this. Trouble is that like almost all systems of royalty, the internal fights mean that the King does not control all of what happens.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Did he ever explicitly call for a new investigation before? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Why not? He sat on the intelligence committee. He had the power to do any investigation he wanted to. If he did not do it, then perhaps we need a "new" investigation of Bob Graham.
 
The Platypus said:
What's the big mystery here, what cover up?
Click to expand...
You don't think that the fact that no mention of the couple has ever appeared publicly — not in the Sept. 11 commission report, nor in FBI briefings to congressional investigators, could be called a "coverup"?
 
From the OP article:

The Sarasota revelations parallel earlier information about a Saudi government employee who had lived in California for years, Graham said. That man, Omar al-Bayoumi, had paid for a San Diego apartment for two of the hijackers, funneled them money and then left the United States in July 2011.
Click to expand...


Those two hijackers are again al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, about whose and al-Bayoumi's story and the ongoing attempts to cover it up you can learn here.
 
Childlike Empress said:
So he didn't? I'm asking, correct me if I missed it.
Click to expand...

You tell me. You say he is asking for a "new" investigation. While planes are flying into the WTC, Bob Graham is having breakfast with the head of Pakistan's ISI. Turns out, some of the money that financed the 9/11 operation passed through his hands. Pakistan's ISI and the Saudi's GID historically work hand-in-hand in the Afghanistan area. So is Graham saying that any investigation he did was not competent? Was he a complete failure in providing oversight to the intelligence community on our behalf while he served on that committee? Or are you saying that Graham was involved too?

Sounds like a lot of trying to deflect attention to the Saudi's so no one will remember that Bob Graham and his committee did a crappy job of oversight.
 
The Platypus said:
I don't get it, 13 of the hijackers were Saudis, Bin Laden is a Saudi. AQ has ties and support from some people in Saudi Arabia. Therefore there were some Saudi people involved. What's the big mystery here, what cover up?
Click to expand...

Maybe the mystery is that most truthers didn't know all that, so they assume it must have been covered up. If so, I have an alternative theory...

Dave
 
Wow.

The Independent said:
Lloyd's insurer sues Saudi Arabia for 'funding 9/11 attacks'

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter
Monday, 19 September 2011

A Lloyd's insurance syndicate has begun a landmark legal case against Saudi Arabia, accusing the kingdom of indirectly funding al-Qa'ida and demanding the repayment of £136m it paid out to victims of the 9/11 attacks.

The Brighton-based Lloyd's 3500 syndicate, which paid $215m compensation to companies and individuals involved, alleges that the oil-rich Middle Eastern superpower bears primary responsibility for the atrocity because al-Qa'ida was supported by banks and charities acting as "agents and alter egos" for the Saudi state. [...]

Its complaint, which quotes heavily from US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks detailing investigations by the US authorities into al-Qa'ida, attempts to establish funding links between some Saudi charities, and the terror group, and implicate the Saudi government in that funding through its support of the charities.

The case singles out the activities of a charity, the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya (SJRC), which was alleged by UN officials to have been used as a cover by several al-Qa'ida operatives, including two men who acted as directors of the charity. It is alleged that at the time the SJRC was under the control of Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, half-brother of King Abdullah and the long-standing Saudi Interior minister. The claim states: "Between 1998 and 2000, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through the SJRC, diverted more than $74m to al-Qa'ida members and loyalists affiliated with SJRC bureaus. Throughout this time, the Committee was under the supervision and control of Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz."

The Saudi embassies in London and Washington did not respond to requests from The Independent for a response to the allegations in the claim. The 9/11 Commission, America's official report on the attacks, found that there was no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials individually funded al-Qa'ida. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Wow.
Click to expand...

So why would those in power in Saudi want to attack the US? As for suing them why, if they were incompetent and/or negligent and allowed funding of of a terrorist organizational then they suffer the consequences.

The Saudi royal family is large and most will never hold any power but its not unlikely some of them on the fringe would support Islamic Fundamentalists for their own reasons in much the same way a OBL did.

Why would the US cover it up? Because Saudi has lots of oil and if it was not those in charge, whats to be gained by stirring up anti Saudi feelings here?
They let the Saudis clean up their own house..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom