The 9/11 Saudi Connection

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You want to be polite but call me names


Here is my post:

If Saudi Arabia had anything to do with 911 it was as part of the plot as devised by the western or Israeli perpetrators. What reason would Saudi Arabia have in doing 911 by itself? Other than as part of the overall plot by the secret plotters. Saudi would be crazy to do this by itself. Your thesis falls on that alone!

Is there anything there that resembles a personal insult?
Did I call you a name in my post?

NO

Then who is ignorant?


You also were so busy insulting me you didn’t even deal with the simple one line that countered your thesis


So who is the ignorant one?

a reply to: Willtell

Is there anything there that resembles a personal insult?
Did I call you a name in my post?

Nope, you did not insult me in anyway.

And i did say i would try to be polite, not always possible i am afraid.

Then who is ignorant?

Why do people feel that somebody saying "you are being ignorant" is a insult, to be called ignorant only means you are not displaying you have a good grasp of the facts. I am not trying to offend you and I apologise if you are offended of my use of the word ignorant. If you would like I could say that your post does not seem to come form a factual back ground but rather a personal opinion because you are not stating reported facts.

You also were so busy insulting me you didn’t even deal with the simple one line that countered your thesis

Did you not read all of my post?

I dealt with each of your points line by line, I explained to you what I thought may have been the motivation for Saudi involvement for example.

So who is the ignorant one?

Well its not me.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


Points:

I actually read most of your op

You see it doesn’t take much to counter a long written statement with a simple sentence.

Perhaps that’s what upsets you so much

Anyway
It’s not a novel approach accusing the Saudis of connection with AQ (since they helped start it through the Afghan war when they and the US were allies against Russia) or of course accusing the Saudis of some connection to 911.

Also, if you remember during 911 many people accused Saudi of complicity

The idea that Saudi did 911 directly I think is not too logical, imo.

As you have acknowledged that they may have been involved with another party, I have no problem with.

There is no love for SA coming from me since I believe their distorted version of Islam (Wahabism) is part of the problem


Finally, I personally don’t believe Israel did 911 like many conspiracy theorists

a reply to: Willtell

You see it doesn’t take much to counter a long written statement with a simple sentence.

And how have you countered anything in the OP?

honestly I am yet to see anything you have written that questions my OP and my contention that Saudi-Arabia provided support to the terrorists on 9/11.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Chill out bro its no big thing.

You wrote a decent op

I agree Saudi is a sinister place if that’s what you want to convey

And likely did have something to do with 911, though I don’t think from the perspective you might believe

Maybe I did bring up a straw argument since you did admit you weren’t saying Saudi was the only perpetrator.


That's all I was bringing up

a reply to: Willtell

To be clear i think that it was only Saudi and Al-Qa'ida behind the attacks.

All i was saying is that based on the OP it would not exclude one from saying it was Saudi and another state actor.

I don't quite get how you were saying in your first post that my thesis falls, yet now you seem to be agreeing with me

And likely did have something to do with 911, though I don’t think from the perspective you might believe

so what is your perspective one this?

I will add this….The thing about Saudi is that if they did have something to do with it they are pretty dense in using or helping their own citizens?

Unless they were set up

originally posted by: Willtell
I will add this….The thing about Saudi is that if they did have something to do with it they are pretty dense in using or helping their own citizens?

Unless they were set up

So you think the Saudi's were set up but then the American government covered it up?

Set up then by whom?

Hey Guys,

Just thought i would give this thread a bump given Jesse's recent thread just encase you guys missed it first time round.

All comments welcomed!!

Saudi Arabia helped support the predecessors of Alquaeda in the fight against the Russians. Americas hand is deeper into its saudi puppet (okay its by far most pivotal partner) than in that of Israel where they get the odd no from time to time. Not that it did not pay very very well for the Saudis and was extremely beneficial to them.

Bottom line is anything that goes on in Saudi Arabia the US knows and and probably directs. If it turns out there was a Saudi connection beyond Osama Bin Laden and the high jackers breaking camp there and going rouge their own way either the US knew and did nothing to prevent it or the intent for the events to unfold to get the new pearl harbour they needed came from the US which makes it more likely than an "happy" incident.

Given the relations and mutual interests Saudi Arabia and America have and the priorities the movers and shakers there set endangering Islamic holy sites when they get in the way of million dollar investments I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Saudi Arabia and America are antagonists and that includes the 1973 oil embargo (the same year the Saudis agreed to sell oil for Dollars only) which increased oil price with obvious gains for Saudi Arabia which resulted in higher demand for the US Dollar seen as everbody had to purchase dollars to buy the now more expensive oil.

a reply to: Merinda

Like i have said my research for this thread did not present any evidence of the Saudi state working with any other state actor.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The High jackers were Saudi (most of them), the Bin Laden family is Saudi. I don't know what scope your research entailed but if people in Saudi Arabia were involved as an agitator or through support of any kind I doubt they left a paper trail of their involvement that could have been uncovered by a research conducted with the resources available to you.

Bin Laden probably had more than enough financial resources at his disposal. Therefore any support he would have needed would have revolved around him being able to move freely and not be targeted or interfered with with his actions. Bill Clinton admits to not have stopped Bin Laden when he could have, although the way he frames it, he has been advised to not interfere with Bin Laden (Not mea culpa).

originally posted by: Merinda
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The High jackers were Saudi (most of them), the Bin Laden family is Saudi. I don't know what scope your research entailed but if Saudi Arabia was involved as an agitator or through support of any kind I doubt they left a paper trail of their involvement that could have been uncovered by a research conducted with the resources available to you.

Totally true.

If there was American involvement with Saudi acting as a front man if you like and this had then be covered up my research would not have shown it.

However when there is zero evidence of this we have to discount it, we cannot honestly start believing that speculation is proof of anything.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That just is not true. It only means we can not put anybody on trial convict him and put the needle in him for treason. An investigator does not discount something because he does not have evidence. He tries to find evidence for a trial and when you had a motive for a certain criminal act he will be very interested in you. If he cant find evidence he does not discount that you did it when the best he has is a clear and present motive, unless he finds evidence that leads elsewhere and it turns out that despite your motive you did not act on it but the murder was a case of random unprovoked violence.

And like I said before, Bill Clinton admits himself he could have stopped Bin Laden but chose not to (he says he was advised not to but ultimately it was his decision, I am not entirely sure how America works but if he would have given the go ahead who could have blocked him?). Why would anybody advise Bill Clinton to not stop Bin Laden? The reasoning behind this decision was never given by Clinton. Obviously thats a topic he would not want to dwell on. And again the detective gets very suspicious but also increasingly frustrated that he is empty handed before the DA without any proof to link the small fries whom they did get to Lucky Luciano (I dun have nuttin to do with that Osama, there aint no Mafia). Or to put it very clear, by the time there is enough evidence to put a well connected mobster with lots of fallguys on trial nobody is really surprised that Luciano is the head of a crime family. The media merely celebrates that there is finally enough evidence to convict him for what everybody knew he was and did (and I wouldn't want to change due process mind you).

I think you may all be interested in this here

hydrogen fires.
I recently linked this author of this to a thread of mine and was intrigued. .....then I came to this pist he made....
who is this guy?

Actually no. The whole thing looking like an "inside job" because it looked like explosives were used is good and well to get people suspicious to look deeper into it. But it by itself does not mean it was an inside job. Inversely if all it took was an airliner slamming into the building to bring it down it still does not mean the intent for the attack did not originate from within America.

The debate should revolve around who pulled the trigger, not how did the buildings came down. Who helped and abetted the people involved by action or inaction? And whom gave the go ahead (pulled the trigger).

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Asktheanimals

WHO had the ability to insert false radar returns?
WHO had the ability to make NORAD delay and misuse defense assets?
WHO had the authority to make Washington air defenses stand down?

There is zero proof of any of these.

There were false blips on the radar as their were multiple live life and simulated hijacking that day. You know this Sam, stop being willfully ignorant and outright lie, please source such claims.


Here in this link to the facts. Source

The questions asked are very important. Not sure if he meant to retort.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Merinda
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The High jackers were Saudi (most of them), the Bin Laden family is Saudi. I don't know what scope your research entailed but if Saudi Arabia was involved as an agitator or through support of any kind I doubt they left a paper trail of their involvement that could have been uncovered by a research conducted with the resources available to you.

Totally true.

If there was American involvement with Saudi acting as a front man if you like and this had then be covered up my research would not have shown it.

However when there is zero evidence of this we have to discount it, we cannot honestly start believing that speculation is proof of anything.

So the evidence claims that the 911 hijackers and Bin laden were patsies and this attack was used to sway the world opinion into allowing the U.S conquest of the middle east for the benefit of the oil and israeli interests. The Saudis, the french, british, Israeli, Pakistan, U.S played a role in this. The war games were the excuse used for the positioning of such assets.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbK69rJCy8M

This might interest you. Unless it can be debunked you might have comitted a crime with your investigation. Although i am not sure looking up on the internet meets the criteria of investigate as outlined in the executive order.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Asktheanimals

WHO had the ability to insert false radar returns?
WHO had the ability to make NORAD delay and misuse defense assets?
WHO had the authority to make Washington air defenses stand down?

There is zero proof of any of these.

Yeah he just asks these questions without any thought whatsoever. These are not the questions that will give the ultimate answers like he tries to put over. Stupid questions really.

How do we know that all the theroies that are being thought up such as the OP's Saudi Connection are not just part of the plan for us the people to be sidetracked. How do we KNOW who is involved and who is playing what part.

Surely the planners would of thought about all the connections years in advance and put them in place for us to find yet none of them have anything to do with the attack.

But I hate truthers cos they have lied and caused so much confusion in their vein and pathetic attempt to find the answers. But they have found none with no proof but pure made up theories and no real facts or science behind their nonsense.