Tweet
The redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. This isn't really tin foil hat next level conspiracy stuff, but more about the redacted section of the above report that is suspected to give details about facts about Saudi Arabia's role in the attack that happened on 9/11/01. Some shady ass shit if you ask me...
-
-
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5l-p6txdpk[/ame] -
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRhDzpJV2TM[/ame]Comment
-
Eh Saudis good folks man wouldn't hurt a fly.Comment
-
In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.
That’s quite an understatement.
Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.
Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.
Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”
Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.
Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.
Modal Trigger
Prince BandarPhoto: Reuters
An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.
The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.
Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.
“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”
But Bandar held sway over the FBI.
After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
“The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,” said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House “let them off the hook.”
What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis.
“The FBI covered their ears every time we mentioned the Saudis,” said former Fairfax County Police Lt. Roger Kelly. “It was too political to touch.”
Added Kelly, who headed the National Capital Regional Intelligence Center: “You could investigate the Saudis alone, but the Saudis were ‘hands-off.’ ”
Even Anwar al-Awlaki, the hijackers’ spiritual adviser, escaped our grasp. In 2002, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was detained at JFK on passport fraud charges only to be released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.”
It wasn’t until 2011 that Awlaki was brought to justice — by way of a CIA drone strike.
Strangely, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which followed the congressional inquiry, never cites the catch-and-release of Awlaki, and it mentions Bandar only in passing, his named buried in footnotes.
Two commission lawyers investigating the Saudi support network for the hijackers complained their boss, executive director Philip Zelikow, blocked them from issuing subpoenas and conducting interviews of Saudi suspects.
9/11 Commission member John Lehman was interested in the hijackers’ connections to Bandar, his wife and the Islamic affairs office at the embassy. But every time he tried to get information on that front, he was stonewalled by the White House.
“They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman was quoted as saying in the book, “The Commission.”
Did the US scuttle the investigation into foreign sponsorship of 9/11 to protect Bandar and other Saudi elite?
“Things that should have been done at the time were not done,” said Rep. Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who’s introduced a bill demanding Obama release the 28 pages. “I’m trying to give you an answer without being too explicit.”
A Saudi reformer with direct knowledge of embassy involvement is more forthcoming.
“We made an ally of a regime that helped sponsor the attacks,” said Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “I mean, let’s face it.”Comment
-
As much as I'm trying to learn about economics and finance I know what I don't know. I just had a finance prof (prior VP of Denver Fed, etc) tell me it really probably doesn't mean much at all since the US could just go buy them up and keep everything moving forward. So is SA basically threatening us with a gun that's loaded with blanks? What am I missing here (maybe just more geopolitical than economic)?
Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill
Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.Last edited by Strychnine; 04-17-2016, 09:25 AM.Comment
-
With over 19 trillion in debt, 750 billion is barely a fart in the wind.
Do it and I will blockade your shithole country and you won't be able to give oil away.Comment
-
Maybe if we had a president with a pair of balls.Originally posted by AnthonyS View PostI don't like Republicans, but I really FUCKING hate Democrats.
Sex with an Asian woman is great, but 30 minutes later you're horny again.Comment
-
They see their empire swirling the drain and doing all they can to hold on to power.G'Day MateComment
-
Pretty much my point. If we had a manly president a lot of this BS stops immediately.Originally posted by LANTIRN View Post
Like buzzing my ships etc.Comment
-
Do you think this would be a subject a Libby would grow a pair of balls about, oil? I can see the Liberal narrative, "Look at Obama putting it to those greedy oil rich countries."Originally posted by LANTIRN View PostComment
-
I doubt it.. truth be told, if we could get oil to sustain above $50 a barrel we'd be our own oil barons.Originally posted by big_tiger View PostOriginally posted by PGreenCobraOriginally posted by Trip McNeelyComment
-
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUYLE2R4Dqw[/ame]Comment
-
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzxH-zDfuOY[/ame]Comment
Comment