Saudis funded 9-11

http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.



when will we hold Saudi Arabia accountable?

 

more fascinating info about how SA diverted money from charitable organizations, to Al Qaeda

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...i-arabia-for-funding-911-attacks-2356857.html

 

Why couldn't the Saudis have the military stood down that day? Point is the stand down was the result of something more 'homegrown' than the Saudis (Bush's card playing buddies) were able to provide.

 

don't derail my thread.

last warning.

this thread is about Saudi involvement and funding of 9-11.

 

The Saudis were direct associates of the Bush family. How is that derailing it?

 

yes, and this is why Bush refused to release the sealed parts of the 9-11 Commission.

why won't Obama release these sections? cause Saudi Arabia probably has some severe financial tenticles in the USA.

plus it would severely embarrass the USA if it turns out our major ally...attacked us.

 

The Saudis hated OBL and al Qaeda. They didn't fund 9-11..

Time to release the 28 redacted pages.

- - - Updated - - -

The Saudis want to redacted pages released... and they don't think much of Dubya.. As an oilman he was a complete flop.

 

The CIA seems to think that the Saudis DID fund 9-11.

 

I'm glad you see that I wasn't trying to derail your thread. Thanks.

 

Release them all, total transparency.

 

The Bush boys were big pals with the Saudis so, they must think Bush was also involved, correct?

 

Have you asked them? Scamper down the hall and let us know, there's a good lad.

 

That article is disinfo as the proof that the US government planned and carried out the attacks is crushing.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867

The article was written by sophists who didn't even believe what they were saying themselves.

 

Indeed. We're not supposed to see what we're not supposed to see though ( I guess).

 

no its not.

 

Never.

P.S. - This has already been posted.

 

1) It's not probably - the Saudis do have large economic interests in the U.S. and vice versa is true as well.

2) Foreign involvement would likely cover more than just Saudi loyalty giving hijackers financial aid. I suspect that it would cover Israeli involvement too, not financially, but the spy ring they had in the U.S. that was keeping an eye on Muslims in New York, among other places. There'd probably be some dirt on the Pakistanis too.

 

You need some new material scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c,your old stuff isn't relevant anymore

 

The Kean propaganda 'report' is old too so, I guess that's irrelevant now too. Right?

 

/the 9/11 report is the definitive work on what happened sept.11,2001

Not our fault you won't accept the truth,boss.

 

'your old stuff isn't relevant anymore'

That's your line there, right?

 

Trouble reading now,boss?

 

Because it isn't the truth. It's a fine report, but it is not 'definitive'.

 

Definitive enough for me,and it is the truth

 

I'm not saying that the report isn't truthful, just that it isn't truthful to say that it is 'definitive'.