Andrew Napolitano: The Saudi Arabian Government's Involvement In 9/11 Finally Revealed

[TheTexan]

Yes, closing the barn door after the horses have run off is such an effective strategy.

I guess 4 stories doesn't count as "tall'

(though the Pentagon only has 5 stories above ground)

Man Crashes Plane Into Texas I.R.S. Office (2010)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html?_r=0

Guess we need TSA screeners at all private airports...

-t

It's not a terrorist attack if it's not done by muslims. Doesn't count.

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

The allegations are that they funded the organization that carried out the attacks. Were they aware of the intent of the group to specifically target the world trade center with hijacked planes? That would be even more damning. Amazingly, we are just as guilty of funding groups who use those funds to attack us.

 

[anaconda]

Meanwhile Shepard Smith manages to insult 9-11 truthers on multiple occasions throughout the interview.

 

[anaconda]

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Looks to me like if Feinstein's act of disclosure was a felony then the Constitution would not protect her.

 

[devil21]

Hillary Cllinton is not going to want to talk about the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/

, ,


"... the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. "

, ,

Clinton Foundation is nothing more than the money launderer for the Clinton Global Initiative, a CFR action network.

 

[libertygrl]

I'm very suspicious when the controlled news media brings up something like this because afterall, their job is to lie, distort and suppress the truth. Why is this information coming out now? Who stands to gain? Anyway, found the following on YouTube:

 

[libertygrl]

Also from former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds:

“I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a “war on drugs,” but said in the beginning, “right, we’re only going to go after the young black guys on the street level…” But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels…

It’s like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis — but never touch the guys on the top.”

Which people are Sibel talking about?
Sibel is talking about three different, though often over-lapping, groups of:
a) Those who were directly involved in planning and/or facilitating the 911 attacks,
b) Those who knowingly, specifically, intentionally provided and facilitated ‘indirect’ support functions for the attacks
c) Those who support and finance al-Qaeda generally.

Let’s begin at the highest level. In Sibel’s “THE HIGHJACKING OF A NATION – Part 1” she quotes Senator Bob Graham’s numerous statements that Saudi Arabia’s support for some of the 911 hijackers has been hidden in the redacted 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report into 911. Sibel notes:


“What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.” (emphasis mine)

In various other interviews and articles, Sibel gives us some clues as to which ‘other countries’ she is pointing to. For example, in this 2006 interview, Sibel says


We’re not just talking about – as they say – Saudi Arabia and Egypt – but they have glossed over the involvement of certain entities within other countries – such as Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan – many Central Asian countries.

They have absolutely covered up the involvement of certain entities – it’s not necessarily only governmental – from these other countries – Central Asia – they call it “Sensitive Diplomatic Relations’ – you know they are putting (military) bases there.

Please note that not only is the US establishing military bases in these countries, these countries are generally:
1) Major customers for US military hardware
2) US ‘allies’
3) Anti-democracy, anti-freedom, police states
4) Major players in the heroin trade
5) Supporters of various terrorist activity

http://www.911truth.org/sibel-edmonds-case-the-real-culprits-of-911/

 

[jmdrake]

It's not a terrorist attack if it's not done by muslims. Doesn't count.

And airplanes only cause buildings to fall when muslims fly them. And only fires started by muslims cause steel framed skyscrapers to collapse into their own footprint. The muslims must say a special prayer or something.

 

[fatjohn]

Interesting tidbit about Feinstein being immune because she spoke on the floor of the Senate. Does that apply to the House too? How many people in Congress have read the mysterious pages of the 9/11 Report?

Yes very good question. Why dont amash are massie tell us what they read if this is true?

 

[jmdrake]

Of course other nations are involved. And Graham knows this. He was told about a plot involving Pakistan involved in an attack on the WTC as early as June 2001. He was meeting with the Pakistani intelligence chief who funded 9/11 on 9/11. Yet he never talks about Pakistan. Why?

Also from former FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds:

“I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a “war on drugs,” but said in the beginning, “right, we’re only going to go after the young black guys on the street level…” But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels…

It’s like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis — but never touch the guys on the top.”

Which people are Sibel talking about?
Sibel is talking about three different, though often over-lapping, groups of:
a) Those who were directly involved in planning and/or facilitating the 911 attacks,
b) Those who knowingly, specifically, intentionally provided and facilitated ‘indirect’ support functions for the attacks
c) Those who support and finance al-Qaeda generally.

Let’s begin at the highest level. In Sibel’s “THE HIGHJACKING OF A NATION – Part 1” she quotes Senator Bob Graham’s numerous statements that Saudi Arabia’s support for some of the 911 hijackers has been hidden in the redacted 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report into 911. Sibel notes:


“What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.” (emphasis mine)

In various other interviews and articles, Sibel gives us some clues as to which ‘other countries’ she is pointing to. For example, in this 2006 interview, Sibel says


We’re not just talking about – as they say – Saudi Arabia and Egypt – but they have glossed over the involvement of certain entities within other countries – such as Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan – many Central Asian countries.

They have absolutely covered up the involvement of certain entities – it’s not necessarily only governmental – from these other countries – Central Asia – they call it “Sensitive Diplomatic Relations’ – you know they are putting (military) bases there.

Please note that not only is the US establishing military bases in these countries, these countries are generally:
1) Major customers for US military hardware
2) US ‘allies’
3) Anti-democracy, anti-freedom, police states
4) Major players in the heroin trade
5) Supporters of various terrorist activity

http://www.911truth.org/sibel-edmonds-case-the-real-culprits-of-911/

 

[jmdrake]

Yes very good question. Why dont amash are massie tell us what they read if this is true?

Because immunity from arrest doesn't prevent your car's computer getting hacked and you mysteriously dying in a crash.

 

[jmdrake]

this guy better get protection

This is a controlled release of information. The PTB are fine with Bob Graham doing this. Note that he's not talking about Pakistan.

 

[AuH20]

This is a controlled release of information. The PTB are fine with Bob Graham doing this. Note that he's not talking about Pakistan.

I don't think it's controlled. He's been talking about this for the last year. If it was controlled they would have released the 28 pages far earlier. Graham was intentionally stonewalled by the FBI on a subpoena which started this whole quest. Does anyone else realize the potential implications of the Federal Bureau of Investigation directly subverting an investigation into the events of 9/11?

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11116

JAY: Well, if you combine that with what was clearly a message that was sent throughout the police to the FBI, to the intelligence agencies, that we're not very interested terrorism anymore--. Coleen Rowley that was part of the FBI group in Minneapolis that tried to get a warrant for Moussaoui, who was this guy learning to take off and not land, and the air flight instructor tells the local FBI office, and they cannot get the warrant. FBI headquarters won't give them the warrant to go get the computer. And it's a longer, detailed story. And if people want, they can go watch. We've interviewed Coleen Rowley. But I asked Coleen, what did you make of this? I mean, why? And she said there just seemed to be coming from the top a culture: don't follow terrorism; we're not interested in it.

GRAHAM: And we had a number of instances such as that. There was a very suspicious and I think potentially central figure in the Saudi relationship to the hijackers who was an elderly man, retired university professor, who in his dotage had taken to inviting young Saudis to live in his house as boarders. It was both a source of some income, but also some comfort. It happened that two of the boarders that this man invited to live in his house were future hijackers.
We very much wanted to interview that elderly former professor to find out just what had he learned having these two hijackers living literally under his roof. We were denied access. Here's--the joint intelligence committees of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives are being told, you cannot talk to this man. We said, could we send you questions and--.

JAY: Who is this you're--.

GRAHAM: The FBI.

JAY: FBI.

GRAHAM: And they say, no, we won't present the questions to him.
So we went to a federal judge and got a subpoena to require this man's arrival. It was on a Friday afternoon. I had the subpoena in my hand. The FBI agent in charge was in a small room in the capital, and I was prepared to hand him the subpoena. And he backed up against the wall and said, we don't like to have our people subpoenaed. And they described him as being "our people" because he was--in addition to taking in boarders, he also was paid by the FBI to allegedly oversee the actions of young Saudis.

JAY: Yeah. Isn't that the point? He was an FBI informant.

GRAHAM: Yeah. So that's why they were hiding him so much.
But anyway, the man said don't force the subpoena on us on Monday; seventy-two hours from now we will deliver this man.
So the biggest mistake maybe I made in my public life was accepting the truthfulness, the veracity of that man's statement, 'cause I did not push the subpoena into his hands. Seventy-two hours passed. No witness came forward. And from that point forward, they just ran the clock out until the session of Congress that we had legal authority to conduct our investigation ran out. And to my knowledge nobody has ever interviewed that man, who I think has a lot to say and to contribute to our understanding of the Saudi role in 9/11.

JAY: Where is he now?

GRAHAM: It think he's still in San Diego. The last time I checked, which was three or four years ago, he was.

JAY: This must frustrate you to no end that you weren't able to finish your work, in a sense, and then it has left the public discourse. There's no further inquiries

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think it's controlled. He's been talking about this for the last year. If it was controlled they would have released the 28 pages far earlier. Graham was intentionally stonewalled by the FBI on a subpoena which started this whole quest.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11116

That's more proof that it's controlled. Bob Graham was told prior to 9/11 that Pakistan was planning to attack the WTC. He admitted that years ago. Indian intelligence proved after 9/11 that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired the money ($100,000) to the lead hijacker. This was proven back in 2002. Yet it didn't make it into the 9/11 commission report and Graham isn't talking about it now. And who was meeting with the head of Pakistani intelligence on 9/11 itself? Why Bob Graham was. That doesn't prove that Graham was a part of 9/11, but it does prove that Graham should know about the Pakistani connection yet he still refuses to bring it up. Controlled opposition. He needs to be investigated.

 

[AuH20]

That's more proof that it's controlled. Bob Graham was told prior to 9/11 that Pakistan was planning to attack the WTC. He admitted that years ago. Indian intelligence proved after 9/11 that the head of Pakistani intelligence wired the money ($100,000) to the lead hijacker. This was proven back in 2002. Yet it didn't make it into the 9/11 commission report and Graham isn't talking about it now. And who was meeting with the head of Pakistani intelligence on 9/11 itself? Why Bob Graham was. That doesn't prove that Graham was a part of 9/11, but it does prove that Graham should know about the Pakistani connection yet he still refuses to bring it up. Controlled opposition. He needs to be investigated.

Pakistan may have been involved. But you're creating this false conclusion in your mind just because all of the oranges haven't been shaken from the tree. The Saudis were undoubtedly a major player given their vast resources and closeness with our power structure (Kissinger). If this information was truly benign. it would have never been redacted for so long.

 

[AuH20]

I was thinking he has a hidden illness and was like, "fuck it".

My theory is that he started to integrate his 'findings' into a fictional work (he's written a couple books already) and got a visit by the agency, who probably spooked him real bad. If you want to survive, you come out for the public record. If the former chair of the Senate Intelligence committee goes missing, it would be a very big deal.

 

[phill4paul]

So when are SEALs gonna pull a Zero-Dark Thirty on the house of Saud?

 

[jmdrake]

Pakistan may have been involved. But you're creating this false conclusion in your mind just because all of the oranges haven't been shaken from the tree. The Saudis were undoubtedly a major player given their vast resources and closeness with our power structure (Kissinger). If this information was benign. it would never been redacted for so long.

Okay. Did you even read what I wrote? Did you process it? Bob Graham was told about the Pakistani connection BEFORE 9/11 and he is STILL covering it up! He is not some random ass person that just found one piece of the puzzle and hasn't "shook the rest of the oranges from the tree" yet. Why doesn't he come out at talk about what he and the Pakistani General who funded 9/11 were doing together on 9/11? Did this General seem shocked about the attacks? Why was all of this left out of the report? Really, pull your head out of the sand and think this through. I'm not saying this information is "benign." I'm saying there's worse information out there and one good way to keep the worst information from gaining steam to have controlled release of the less bad information.

Think of it this way. Let's say you were a criminal. Let's say the police were on to you. Let's say you had three different people in your gang. Person A was your buddy. Person B had the goods on you. Person C was expendable. Who would you give up to the police to keep the heat off of yourself and why? So far the only people that Graham has implicated are Saudi nationals. Guess what? Osama Bin Laden himself was a Saudi national. But Graham hasn't spoken about the Saudi government. The Pakistani connection implicates that Pakistani government. More importantly the Pakistani ISI and the CIA are joined at the hip. It was the ISI that the CIA used to fund its Afghanistan campaign against the Soviets.

Bob Graham isn't some farmer shaking fruit off the tree. He's part of the fruit.

 

[jmdrake]

My theory is that he started to integrate his 'findings' into a fictional work (he's written a couple books already) and got a visit by the agency, who probably spooked him real bad. If you want to survive, you come out for the public record. If the former chair of the Senate Intelligence committee goes missing, it would be a very big deal.

Does his fictional book have a character in it named "Bob" who meets with the man funding the terrorist attacks but then never says anything about it and instead points people elsewhere?

 

[jmdrake]

So when are SEALs gonna pull a Zero-Dark Thirty on the house of Saud?

Zero-Dark Thirty = Saving Private Lynch but with the media and all of the soldiers going along with the script this time.