But “We Can’t Afford to Irritate the Saudis” By Actually Looking Into Who Backed 9/11 … “Especially with Oil Prices Going Up Now”
Contrary to the official narrative, 9/11 was state-sponsored terror. The only question is which state sponsored it.
A 9/11 Commissioner and Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 say in sworn declarations that the Saudi government is linked to the 9/11 attacks.
This week, the Miami Herald provided more evidence of a Saudi link:
A Saudi family who “fled” their Sarasota area home weeks before 9/11 had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001,” according to newly released FBI records.
ABSTRACT: Some sceptics believe Osama was not behind 9/11 and may have been framed. This article argues that Osama was in on the game since the beginning, and that the Bin Laden family might be members of the Global Elite. For the first time ever, this article also pieces together a theory that has been gaining traction in Pakistan since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. That Osama was killed around December 2001 by a “rogue” MI-6 operative named Omar Saeed Shaikh, in an act of vigilantism . Sadly, Saeed did not get to claim the $25 million bounty on Osama’s head. Instead he got framed for the mysterious murder of reporter Daniel Pearl, who was preparing to tell the world about Saeed’s wondrous feat.
The passage of time since September 11, 2001, has not diminished the distrust many of us feel surrounding the official story of how 9/11 happened and, more specifically, who financed and supported it. After eleven years, the time has come for the families of the victims, the survivors and all Americans to get the whole story behind 9/11.
Yet the story of who may have facilitated the 19 hijackers and the infrastructure that supported the attacks -- a crucial element of the narrative -- has not been told. The pieces we do have underscore how much more remains unknown.
Did the hijackers execute the plot alone, or did they have the support of forces other than the known leaders of al-Qaeda -- a network even -- that provided funds, assistance, and cover?
It is not merely a question of the need to complete the historical record. It is a matter of national security today.
The amount of U.S. currency circulating outside banks rose sharply in July/August 2001. The growth ran into the billions of dollars, and was concentrated in $100 bills. These large-scale currency movements matter for anyone who cares about learning the truth about 9/11.
Under money laundering and other laws, assets can be frozen and seized in the banking system. Knowing this, parties concerned that their assets might be frozen or otherwise at risk after 9/11 would have had an incentive to liquidate securities and banking accounts beforehand, and withdraw their money in difficult-to-trace ways. This could have happened in U.S. banking and securities accounts, as well as accounts denominated in U.S. dollars outside the United States. Finding the parties responsible for large-scale withdrawals of currency before 9/11 could help identify people aware of, if not responsible for, those events.
Monday, 5. March 2012
9/11 Questions Bubble Up in the Media
On Friday February 24, Boiling Frogs posted an article titled “Media Sleepwalks, While History is in the Making.” Three articles had come out the week before, one in the London Daily Telegraph and two in the Florida-based Broward Bulldog, raising important new questions about the crimes of September 11, 2001 and the quality of the government’s investigation. In particular, these articles discussed new information and questions coming from former Senator Robert Graham, questions relating to secret documents that Graham described as running at odds with past government assertions in the 9/11 investigation. These three articles also raised new questions about the role of the government of Saudi Arabia.
The Feb 24 Boiling Frogs post discussed those three articles, and noted that there hadn’t been a single article in the mainstream media on the issues they raised, even though a week had gone by. The post then asked if a valid prediction market could be established for the date when the media would wake up.
Political prediction markets have a very interesting history. One of the difficulties in having a successful market, a market that people trust, is related to a similar issue in futures markets. Futures contracts need to be specified carefully and clearly, and remain free of ambiguous legal interpretation.
Recently Deceased Crown Prince Sultan and his son Bandar “Bush” Epitomize Highly Questionable Saudi 9/11 Connections
News of the Saudi Crown Prince passing in the U.S. and his new successor to the post warrant a refresher on the attempts to name them in 9/11 lawsuits years ago.
ONE BIG FAMILY
Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, died just a weeks ago in a New York hospital due to ill health. The world’s largest oil-exporting nation has quickly found an heir to the Crown Prince, a position directly under the most powerful of the King. The new Crown Prince has been named as Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, brother of the deceased Crown Prince Sultan. Both were half-brothers to the current King of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, and both are a part of the powerful Sudairi Seven.
By Michael Collins
(Washington, DC) A faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard called the Quds Force (QF) is center stage in the War on Terror for the second time in five years. In 2007, President George W. Bush hauled out the group of middle and upper level Iranian government officials as a rationale for military action against Iran. The decisive shutdown of the Bush effort marks a critical turning point in recent history and will be discussed later in the article.
QF II began last Tuesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder unified the terror storyline between the rabid neoconservatives of the Bush era and the low key loyalists to the national security state in the Obama administration.
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.
The detailed case, which names a number of prominent Saudi charities and banks as well as a leading member of the al-Saud royal family, will cause embarrassment to the Saudi government, which has long denied claims that Osama bin Laden's organisation received official financial and practical support from his native country.
Posted on 09.12.11
By Eric W. Dolan
Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham on Monday called on the U.S. government to reopen its investigation into 9/11 after a report found that links between Saudi Arabia and the hijackers were never disclosed by the FBI to the 2002 joint Congressional intelligence committee investigating the attacks.
“In the final report of the congressional inquiry, there was a chapter related primarily to the Saudi role in 9/11 that was totally censored, every word of the chapter has been withheld from the public,” Graham said on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show.
“Some of the other questions we ought to be asking are if we know that the Saudis who lived in San Diego and now apparently in Sarasota received substantial assistance, what about the Saudis who lived in Phoenix, Arizona? Or Arlington, Virginia? … What was happening in those places?”
“I believe these are questions for which there are definitive answers, but the American people and largely their elected representatives have been denied that information.”
Watch video, courtesy of MSNBC, below:
Sunday, August 28, 2011
This guest blog is from Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Kevin's personal blog can be found at Dig Within.
Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world’s greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about.
A few pro-truth comments after the article
For their new book, 'The Eleventh Day’, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan trawled through thousands of documents, piecing together a definitive account of the attacks.
On September 11, bereaved family members will mark the 10th anniversary of the cataclysmic terrorist attacks on American cities. They will gather around the pools of remembrance at the newly opened memorial, where the names of the 2,982 known victims who died on the day and in the earlier bombing of 1993 are engraved on parapets of bronze. President Obama and his predecessor, George W Bush will be on hand.
Two official inquiries have investigated the who, the how, and the why of 9/11. A decade on, however, many questions remain. Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohort plotted and executed the operation, but did they act alone? Only days after the onslaught, President Bush's defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said the terrorists "live and work and function and are fostered and encouraged, if not just tolerated, by a series of countries… I know a lot… It's a sensitive matter."
Flashback: 2 years ago, on June 29th 2009, The U.S. Supreme Court let a ruling stand regarding 9/11 lawsuits and Saudi Arabia. Reuters reported:
…Saudi Arabia, four of its princes and other Saudi entities cannot be held liable for the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks in the United States.
The justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.
The appeals court had upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Saudi Arabia, four princes, a Saudi charity and a Saudi banker provided material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.
The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.
Submitted by geopol geopol on 11/01/2010 22:50 -0500
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far
less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened
in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she
startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was
not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London
were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, “just
to keep the people frightened.” Orwell, 1984, 127.
A well known, and often committed, logical fallacy is the false dilemma. When you consider two variables (US Government, Al Qaeda), you have the following, logically possible options:
|US Government||Al Qaeda|
|Involvement in 9/11|
That's four possibilities, not "either the US did it, or Al Qaeda did it". As you'll note, "neither" and "both" are also options.
What happens when we add Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
Philadelphia Inquirer: Law Review: One contingent hopes Kagan hearings revisit 9/11 case
By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer
At a time when the ideal Supreme Court nominee comes coated in Teflon, the better to fend off partisan attacks, Elena Kagan has a pretty good resume.
She has never served as a judge and her writings reveal little about how she would rule on the most ideologically divisive issues of the day. The absence of any meaningful paper trail, apart from things such as her decision as Harvard Law School dean to ban military recruiters, makes her less of a target.
Yet there is one legal case in Kagan's background that to a small group of litigants constitutes a profound distortion of justice, a slap in the face that they say stings even now, one year later.
And they contend that the Senate Judiciary Committee should keep this case in mind, painful though it may be to revisit the matter, as it reviews Kagan's nomination in the coming weeks.
Posted on Thu, Dec. 24, 2009
Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis
By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer
In a sign that the bitter litigation between victims of the 9/11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia is far from over, Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday introduced legislation that would overturn court rulings barring lawsuits that contend the desert kingdom helped cause the terrorism.
Specter (D., Pa.) said the legislation would clarify that lawsuits by U.S. citizens could go forward without a sign-off from the State Department.
A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.
Besides clarifying the law, the bill would reinstate those lawsuits.
"Supreme Court quashes 9/11 lawsuit against Saudis"
"...That was more or less the position of the Obama administration as well, which sided with the [SAUDIS] and urged the courts to dismiss the lawsuit."
"...Among the documents were a statement from an Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia who said the Saudi High Commission had funded the terrorist group in the 1990s, and evidence from the U.S. Treasury Department that a Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, had been financially supporting Al Qaeda as recently as 2006."
I'm not surprised that the little people of the world, the victims, have no say in international affairs. This is quite blatant and is essentially the status quo. The famous quote by Nazi Air Marshall Herman Goering is relevant here:
New Evidence Links Saudi Royal Family To Al Qaeda And Extremists, But May Never Be Used In 9/11 Suit
New York Times: Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists
June 24, 2009
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.
The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.
Saudi filing faults Cozen suit: The Phila. law firm wants the kingdom held accountable for the Sept. 11 attacks. Saudis say U.S.
Posted on Tue, Jan. 6, 2009
Saudi filing faults Cozen suit: The Phila. law firm wants the kingdom held accountable for the Sept. 11 attacks. Saudis say U.S. law prohibits that.
By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer
Setting the stage for a critical court decision, lawyers for Saudi Arabia have asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda.
In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.
The lawsuit was brought by the Philadelphia law firm of Cozen O'Connor on behalf of dozens of insurance companies that paid out billions in property-damage claims at ground zero. A federal district court judge in Manhattan threw out the case against Saudi Arabia in 2005, and that decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The following FBI document was obtained by the website "Intelwire.com" in February of this year. It confirms the following:
"Phone records revealed Bayoumi called local Saudi officials, including the consulate in San Diego, 34 times. He called Saudi officials in Washington D.C. 141 times in the same period, according to the memo -- more than twice a day on average."
This is the man the FBI hid from investigators, and who had hosted 2 alleged hijackers and paid for them to get an apartment. There is also a discrepancy about when he met them, with an apparent lie that he did not meet them at the airport the day of their arrival.
This is clear smoking gun cover-up evidence.
California Resident Who Helped 9/11 Hijackers Was Closely Linked To Saudi Government
2002-04-15: FBI Letterhead Memorandum, Omar Al Bayoumi Contacts With Saudi Government