A member of the 9/11 commission has broken his silence about some of the unreleased findings:
A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission's leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.
The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.
Related Stories
Ahead of the US president's visit to Saudi Arabia, a series of multi-billion-dollar arms deals have been outlined. The previous US administration suspended some supplies because of human rights concerns.
When President Trump arrives in Riyadh this week, he will lay out his vision for a new regional security architecture White House officials call an “Arab NATO,” to guide the fight against terrorism and push back against Iran. As a cornerstone of the plan, Trump will also announce one of the largest arms-sales deals in history.
Behind the scenes, the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia have been conducting extensive negotiations, led by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The discussions began shortly after the presidential election, when Mohammed, known in Washington as “MBS,” sent a delegation to meet with Kushner and other Trump officials at Trump Tower.
After years of disillusionment with the Obama administration, the Saudi leadership was eager to do business. “They were willing to make a bet on Trump and on America,” a senior White House official said.
[...] The most concrete part of the idea is a mammoth U.S. arms package for Saudi Arabia that Trump will also announce in Riyadh. Final details are still being worked out, but officials said the package will include between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales. Over 10 years, total sales could reach $350 billion.
The sales include huge upgrades for the Saudi army and navy to include Littoral Combat Ships, THAAD missile defense systems, armored personnel carriers, missiles, bombs and munitions, officials said. Some of the production and assembly could be located in Saudi Arabia, boosting MBS’s project to build a Saudi domestic defense industrial capability. But most of the items would be built by American defense contractors.
Additional coverage:
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:52AM
Wahhabism. "Return to Koranic literalism". What more needs to be said?
It is hardly surprising that some government officials were involved in 9/11. Actually, I'm surprised that they didn't identify some more senior members of the government, possibly even some of their princes.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:36AM
You listen to half the conspiracy theorists on the web, (some of them here on SN) and they would have you believe it was a CIA operation from the start.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM
that's the point. They stir it up so stability doesn't exist. An unstable system is easier to nudge...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:48AM
conspiracy theorists on the web
Because conspiracies do not exist, as we all know. The government cannot lie. No government has ever lied and no group has ever lied either. Correct?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:32AM
You didn't learn from the Snowden leak. People weren't enough foil hat conspiracy suspicious. Whenever something is possible in these matters assume it is exploited with bad intent, always.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:39AM
Do you have proof is wasn’t a CIA operation?
Considering the CIA has their hands in all the cookie jars, I’m pretty sure they were involved at some level. I know they armed and trained Al-Qaeda, even trained Osama himself. How far it went after that, I have no idea. Pretty sure no one will know until CIA Snowden comes forth.
Even knowing how the CIA tremendously fucked up, why did Obama have the CIA train ISIS? Or whatever you want to call them before they became ISIS. Did the CIA recommend it or is Obama that stupid?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:27AM
Pretty sure no one will know until CIA Snowden comes forth.
That already happened. Snowden was originally CIA before he was tasked with taking NSA down a peg for reducing their HUMINT via shared data.
Oh, you mean when a leaker from inside CIA gets massive news coverage in CIA influenced western news? Not gonna happen. Protip: Nothing Snowden released wasn't already known either directly or indirectly through other means. Room 641A was known beforehand. ECHELON / Five Eyes and Omnivore / Carnivore before it were known about going back to the 60's. We've been documenting warrantless spying going back to telegraphs and snail mail. However, the media didn't hammer on about it until CIA wanted it talked about.
Huge leaks happen all the time, but you're not hip to them and they won't get air time like Snowden leaks because CIA doesn't want them to be aired. The leaks happening aren't what's required to get the info out. The ignorant masses will stay ignorant unless the mainstream media makes a point of it, even if gov officials are on the record talking about how DoD and CIA are fighting each other accidentally via their respective creations of FSA and ISIS (also a Mossad OP; protip: Israel gets 70% of their oil from ISIS through Turkey).
Hint: The 28 pages are primarily propaganda and will not unmask the most grievous of the culprits. Look into who purchased the WTC properties (having a negative ROI) and insured them against terrorist attacks just before the buildings were demolished (they had asbestos and were too expensive to remodel or demolish legally). What commonality does Silverstein have with the [prior] owner of the venue attacked in Paris? Did you know that the Bataclan concert hall was sold just before the attacks, on 9/11? Did you know the 'Eagles of Death Metal' who were playing at the event had a song titled, "San Bernardino", which was where the next major terrorist attack took place?
Starting making the connections, and it will get a bit too coincidental for Occam's Razor to dismiss. You don't need a Snowden of the CIA, you just need to do a bit of research. Note that you can not determine what the simplest answer might be without knowing most of the evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by https on Sunday May 15 2016, @09:21PM
Nice try, but you're a fucking shill. Forumspies Technique #10, but poorly done. If your boss finds out, you're in the shit.
Fixed that for you.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 16 2016, @12:41AM
Ha, that's rich. You're deflecting rather than addressing any of the points. That's a classic disinformation tactic. Known Before Snowden: Prism's AT&T room 641A [wikipedia.org] Carnivore / Omnivore [wikipedia.org] Known Before Snowden., ECHELON / Five Eyes [wikipedia.org] Known before Snowden. Hint: The PATRIOT ACT granted RETROACTIVE immunity to telecoms for helping with vast warrantless wiretapping programs. There's plenty more where that comes from if you just do your own research. Ah, but you see, a real shill would be deflecting and denying not telling people to go digging up more data... Which are you doing and which am I doing?
Just because YOU didn't know about the programs doesn't mean they weren't known about before Snowden.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:47AM
Actually, I'm surprised that they didn't identify some more senior members of the government, possibly even some of their princes.
Just being a prince doesn't make you government employee. It just means you get an allowance.
There are roughly 15,000 princes and princesses. [economist.com] The house of saud is gynormous.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:44AM
But there are thousands of government employees. What is the chance that one or more of them were sympathizers? I'd say it was pretty good. The royal family isn't universally popular.
So given that there are probably a few disaffected among the government employees, I can easily see that there might be support members among this group that were assisting in message passing, passports, etc.
But nothing that Lehman has said constitutes any proof of anything. Why is he asking for the declassification of these 28 pages? If he knows something, he can say something. Its not like anyone would arrest him and send him to prison if he leaked them, or his recollection of them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by https on Thursday May 19 2016, @10:39PM
Prison, no, but brake lines do fail once in a while, don't they?
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:51AM
Even worse is these mosques that spew out hate propaganda against the western society and is a recruiting ground for militant Islam. And the sponsor is Saudi Arabia and other Wahhabism countries. Those that have the highest tendency to along this seems to be small time criminals but even this the authorities miss time from time.
So one can make the case that some actions are actually permitted to happen. Then some new law for intruding on the privacy is introduced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:09AM
> And the sponsor is Saudi Arabia and other Wahhabism countries.
Which countries are those?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM
Qatar.
Just make some searches on Munich. And that's only one example.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:29AM
Have a look here:
No Petrodollar Land Grabbing for Qatar in Brussels [stopterrorfinance.org]
Saudi Arabia has devoted over $70 billion to the cause of exporting Salafism/Wahhabism all over the world since the late 1970s.
Qatar mostly invests in mosques managed by the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization including and representing about 250 Muslim organizations on French soil, most of them renowned for their solid ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This was the case for both the Assalam mosque in Nantes – Qatar paid most of the €4.4 for its construction – and in Mulhouse – for which Qatar Charity disbursed €2 million. The country donated about $1 million to build a mega mosque in Cork, a town that hosts the second biggest Muslim community in the Ireland.
“More temperate or muted versions of Islam were smothered by Wahhabi petrodollars,” writes A.D. Kendall on Moneyjihad.
Through mosques and schools, Wahhabi patrons secured effective channels of indoctrination and propaganda – even recruitment if need be - as well as a privileged cover for potential illicit financial transactions.
What is new is the determined official stance of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who refused to approve the funding that the Qatari government made available for the project and stressed that “it would be paradoxical and against nature to accept funding coming from a country that does not allow religious freedom.”
The decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not isolated. In February 2015, the Austrian Parliament adopted legislation that prohibited Muslim organizations from accepting foreign sources of funding, a measure that France has been considering as well. Shortly after the November 13 terrorist attack in Paris, Iceland’s President took a stance against a donation of a $1 million from Saudi Arabia. Germany’s Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel warned Saudi Arabia..
French senior imam Hassan El Alaoui told Al Jazeera that "according to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:47PM
Qatar mostly invests in mosques managed by the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization including and representing about 250 Muslim organizations on French soil, most of them renowned for their solid ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Your own citation disproves your claim. The muslm brotherhood are not wahabis. They call themselves salafist, but most other salafists don't think they qualify. I know it is hard to distinguish between sects of a religion you have no familiarity with, but at least try to get the basics right, ok?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:55AM
Welcome to "what every one of us knew almost 15 years ago when this happened." I just hope this means we'll stop supporting these fucking maniacs, bring them up before the ICC, and with any luck get W, Cheney, and all the rest in front of the same firing squad as them. They can all go to hell together; I'm sure there's a nice group discount.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:18AM
we'll stop supporting these fucking maniacs, bring them up before the ICC
Isn't that cute!
Why don't you stop supporting the real criminals? The criminals living in Israel and the USians associated with said criminals.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 15 2016, @06:33AM
Diiiiiiiid you not read the rest of the post?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @07:14AM
Where did you mention Israel and Jews? Do they get a free pass? They are the masterminds, after all.
They did know about 9/11 before it had happened (2 hrs):
http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/war-by-deception-2013-full-version/ [undergrounddocumentaries.com]
I tried a Search on your post for:
1. Jew
2. Zionist
3. Israel
... and I found nothing. You forgot about the most important problem and said nothing about the Jewish question.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:40AM
Personally I wish pretty much every Jew, Christian, and Muslim would all drop dead, and yes, I am aware this includes some members of my family. It won't mean an end to war of course, but it will damn well help. If you've seen my post history you know how I regard the Abrahamic religions.
That said...assholery crosses religious boundaries. Evil people will do and be evil regardless of their religion.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @09:48AM
But evil is still evil in anybody's name.
Don Henley's "If Dirt Were Dollars".
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @09:51AM
It won't mean an end to war of course, but it will damn well help
Get rid of the Jews. Put them in cages and the problem will be solved. They cause all wars and profit from them. I don't see many Christians or Muslims benefiting from war and death. Jews, on the other hand, actively work to cause conflict while benefiting from it. For them, usury is a birth-right. They buy and sell but produce nothing.
Personally I wish pretty much every Jew, Christian, and Muslim would all drop dead
Personally I wish pretty much every gay, lesbian, bi and trans would all drop dead. How do you like that?
A person believing in something in the sky is of no concern to you, unless they want to subjugate you. Jews have been trying to do that since day 1. ISIS are Jews, by the way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:22PM
Personally I wish pretty much every gay, lesbian, bi and trans would all drop dead.
You're probably just trying to illustrate some kind of point and this isn't meant to be taken literally. Always keep in mind that homophobia is a Jewish invention. Christianity and Islam are both Jewish inventions. Right now, the Jews are leveraging the Christians' hatred of both Islam and homosexuals. It's all a big distraction from TPP/TTIP/TISA.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 15 2016, @07:36PM
You're welcome to try and come find me (lesbian) and make me drop dead, pencil-dick. I've been told far worse things by far better people. If you actually believe any of the shit you're spouting you're insane, brainwashed, or both.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by devlux on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:56AM
Wow I'm just super surprised by this!
The bin laden family is second only to the Saudi royal family in terms of wealth and prestige in Saudi Arabia.
All of the hijackers were students from Saudi Arabia who were here on student visas.
Yet they weren't a state sponsor of terror? huh?
Saudi Arabia was the only country in the region who was barely even effected by the Arab Spring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Saudi_Arabian_protests [wikipedia.org]
There was also a major feud brewing between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and we got to step into that mess.... again.
http://www.usip.org/publications/saudi-arabia-and-iraq-oil-religion-and-enduring-rivalry-arabic-edition [usip.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:52AM
All of the hijackers were students from Saudi Arabia who were here on student visas.
Yet they weren't a state sponsor of terror? huh?
Nope! Only one of the 19 was on a student visa. [factcheck.org]
But even if they were all on student visas, that still wouldn't mean anything.
Is every american that commits a crime while studying abroad also an agent of the US?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by devlux on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:07AM
In many cases, when it's big shit like this the answer is yes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency [wikipedia.org]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804 [globalresearch.ca]
or even earlier...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic [wikipedia.org]
Americans tend to not be too global in our travels anymore, ergo Americans you meet outside the USA are more likely to be affiliated with a TLA than Americans inside the USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:32AM
Americans tend to not be too global in our travels anymore, ergo Americans you meet outside the USA are more likely to be affiliated with a TLA than Americans inside the USA.
Just because it is more likely does not make it likely. If 1 out of 10,000 US residents are "TLA-affiliated" and 10x more US ex-pats are "TLA-affiliated" that still only makes 1 out of 1,000 ex-pats "TLA-affiliated"
Jesus christ you suck at math. No wonder you are a climate change denier.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by devlux on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:55AM
You fail at basic reading comprehension.
My premise is that proportional to the rest of the world you are unlikely to meet an American in the first place. If you do, they are more likely to be TLA affiliated than if you met a random person inside the USA. I stand by that premise.
Let's see how this works out in reality.
There are 4 kinds of numbers you can use when talking about the likelyhood of your projection holding up to scrutiny.
These "types" of numbers are based on the rigor used to arrive at them.
black numbers (verified from cannonical authoritative sources), red numbers (unverified but reported by a reliable source) and blue numbers(estimate based on a solid metric)
You assume a change of probability of 10x vs the base rate and offer nothing supporting that assumption.
This is what we call a brown number, meaning you pulled it out of your ass. I can prove this statement because you quickly followed with a baseless accusation to attack me as though you thought someone might care. This is called an ad hominem and because ad hominems are a form of "shit talking", it stands to reason your bowels are overloaded so badly that you are defecating through your mouth and onto your keyboard.
Now here is a healthy dose of reality to help you loosen your pipes.
According to the people tasked with cutting paychecks...
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/ [opm.gov]
There are about 4.185 M people employed by Uncle Sam world wide. Over 1/4th of these are uniformed military officers.
Ergo, if you happen via random chance to run into an American who is employed by the govt, you are way more likely to run into DOD (US Military).
US Department of State, diaspora rates show that most Americans living abroad are employed either directly or indirectly by the US Govt or a contractor operating on behalf of the US Govt. The amount of diaspora is less than 6M, which is a grand total of less than 2% of the US population and is more than the entire population employed by the Govt worldwide.
The largest single concentrations are in Canada and Mexico, estimated to be a combined total of around 2M people.
This is strong evidence that a large percentage of the american diaspora are "accidental americans" also known less elegantly as anchor babies, these people aren't likely to self identify as American (if you lived abroad you would understand why, it's like painting a target on your back and putting up a sign saying money piñata).
With that in mind, you can safely reduce the numbers in Canada and Mexico down closer to the numbers for other countries which appears to be about 50k per country.
So that leaves ~2.2M Americans living abroad or ~1.1% of the population. You have to ask yourself then how many of this 1.1% work for the US Govt vs people who just immigrate because they're fed up with the USA.
You'll find that this will fall out along income lines. The reason being, is that unless you have a job or a solid trust fund / retirement, most countries are happy to have you visit but won't allow you to stay terribly long. Furthermore most countries are really damned protective of local jobs and make their local companies actually prove that no one in the country was qualified for the position and available for work. Unlike the USA, this process tends to be a one that the government places strict limits on and goes to great lengths to verify the veracity of.
People who exit for economic protective reasons are not going to maintain US citizenship unless they want to be doubly taxed on their income. Those people become expats and no longer count as Americans. This leaves people employed abroad, down mostly to the US Govt. The only employer of any size actually employing US citizens in a foreign country, hence my statement about TLAs.
The other mistake you made is that you assert that most Americans you meet are ex-pats and this is false by definition of the word.
To expatriate yourself means to renounce your citizenship, otherwise you are dual citizen at best and thus remain subject to double taxation.
Sure you'll meet plenty of older retired folks, especially where I live.
However most of them are former govt employees, including military and law enforcement.
I recommend you learn some basic logic and how to do science before trying to take on topics you don't understand in the future.
Be careful though, you might learn something.
Like how to think for yourself :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:05AM
My premise is that proportional to the rest of the world you are unlikely to meet an American in the first place. If you do, they are more likely to be TLA affiliated than if you met a random person inside the USA. I stand by that premise.
lol So what? Your premise is nothing more than a red herring. But you keep right on standing by it! If you can't think about the topic at least you can think for yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:54PM
> I stand by that premise.
I love it when blowhards say they stand by what they said. Well no fucking duh! You wrote it. Are you in the habit of just saying bullshit you don't believe?
It certainly doesn't make it any more correct, if anything it makes it even more doubtful because facts don't need your moral support.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:41AM
Topic:
9/11 Commission Member: Saudi Officials Supported Hijackers
Your post:
CIA, atrocities committed by CIA, Banana republic
Congratulations. You changed the subject with success.
Note to readers: A shill changes subject to draw attention away from the topic. The above poster is a shill.
(Score: 2) by devlux on Sunday May 15 2016, @06:50AM
Yeah ok a shill, but a shill of what exactly?
I keep getting called, agent, shill, denier etc, every time I post an opinion that is contrary to your internal narrative, which frankly seems to be some sort of stereotype about geek culture perhaps from watching too much CSI or NCIS.
This despite the fact that I don't make a single claim without providing support. Proof that doesn't rely on some conspiratorial tinfoil hat shit.
So who am I shilling for now? What could my motivation possibly be?
Occam's razor, all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually correct.
Frankly it makes sense that you are mentally ill (why else chase me through an obscure news site and call me random as crap names) while posting AC no less as though that would hide you from someone of even moderate intelligence at all.
The other possibility is that you are not mentally ill, but instead have an agenda and you are trying to push that agenda onto others by the 4D method. Distract, divide, discredit, dissolve. It certainly fits the profile of your anti-semitic gibberish from the other day anyways.
That would be hilarious because it's a strategy taken directly from the FBI field manual section on infiltration of tight knight groups, but you don't seem to hold an IQ sufficient for government employment at even the mailroom level. I certainly hope no one would let you near a badge and a gun. Which would mean you're not an agent, but perhaps a rent-a-cop with delusions of grandure.
Also I'd venture a guess here and say soylent doesn't qualify as a tightknight group. The level of opinion here is way too diverse and there is no echo chamber.
Nevertheless we're kidding ourselves if we believe that posting here won't get us onto some sort of watchlist.
I think the real problem is that you are paranoid and delusional and see enemies whenever there is anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
Point of fact, my own postings aren't even 100% consistent on ANY topic, ergo I have no agenda.
That's the nice thing about a discussion forum with other intelligent people.
I can see where I made a mistake and use that information to improve my thinking process going forward.
To address specifically the topic change. I addressed the topic. Even found out I was wrong in my belief about them all being Saudi students. Then the poster above me asked a question. The question was whether or not being an American in a foreign country makes it more likely that you are involved in something untoward in that country. What I showed was a historical argument that yes. If you are an american abroad you likely work for the govt, and then US govt has made a habit of pissing in the world's cheerios.
The guy above me changed the subject, I just gave an answer. The simplest and most direct one I could think of. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.
So Mr AC, what would your answer be and how would you support your claim?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday May 16 2016, @03:12AM
Nope, you're clearly a shill devlux. The Rothschilds just paid you to write those scifi novels and that descentralised vote varification whitepaper so that you'd appear less shillish now, but thankfully a brave young Anonymous Coward has seen through your shillish shillery. By his light, we can finally see the shadow of your shillfulness!
devlux is a shill. Never forget.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:47AM
> Saudi Arabia was the only country in the region who was barely even effected by the Arab Spring
Because the country is so tightly controlled and just in the nick of time the government started spending $37 billion on the poors.
If the price of oil stays down for another couple of years, they won't be able to afford as much welfare at which point conditions will be ripe for a saudi spring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:21AM
Wow I'm just super surprised by this!
No shit!
All of the hijackers were students from Saudi Arabia
The flight trajectory of the hijacked aircraft does not agree with facts and physics. [undergrounddocumentaries.com] Oops!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:55AM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument [rationalwiki.org]
While some fools argue that the bumble bee cannot possibly fly, millions of witnesses testify to the fact that bumblebees DO fly.
There were sufficient witnesses on 9/11/01 to prove that the theory you cite is so much bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:16AM
I am glad you replied without watching the video.
Bumblebee argument
This "theory" is science. So its not "theory" any more. When theory becomes science, it is no longer called a theory.
If this theory were still in its theory stage, then you can use your intelligence to see that it tells the truth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:26AM
A: I should waste most of an hour, watching a video, which purports to prove all those witnesses wrong? Why?
B: You don't seem to grasp the concept of science. The scientific method isn't terribly complicated.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by devlux on Sunday May 15 2016, @07:56AM
Don't bother with this poor confused troll.
I've tried and failed multiple times to explain to them that just giving something a scientific sounding name doesn't make it scientific.
Even if you can build a majority consensus around your theory, that doesn't make it science even if it "sounds scientific".
It just means rigor is lacking in the community and possibly a spine.
Science is a branch of philosophy. One which deals in observation, collection of data and ascertainment of facts.
The scientific method lays out basic standards called rigor, which allows us to attribute the data collected to the hypothesis being tested.
If the data does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong.
Warping the data to "fit" the hypothesis is just intellectual dishonesty.
Remember kids...
A hypothesis is a critical part of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0CGhy6cNJE [youtube.com]
But it's only one part of a process that requires critical thinking skills and a dedication to uncovering the truth, not just what you "believe to be true".
Anything else is pseudo science or religion.
My kids understood this concept before kindergarten. Yet this guy can't follow it?
At this point it's only a troll and we should quit feeding them and just move on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @10:00AM
When theory becomes science, it is no longer called a theory.
Damn straight! I mean, except for ...
Biology: cell theory, modern evolutionary synthesis, germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
Other: Climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology), theories of the origin of the Moon, theories for the Moon illusion
... and let's not forget gravity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @10:59AM
The reply to the video comment (flight trajectory) talked of a "conspiracy theory" or something like that.
The video contains evidence that the maneuvers made by the 9/11 planes were beyond the capabilities of the planes. The video was made by pilots who want an independent investigation. Truth fears no investigation, right?
You could've saved that "theory" post of yours for another time. It wasn't appropriate here, thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:13PM
When the GP posted "When theory becomes science, it is no longer called a theory" they were claiming theories are not "science" to which I call bullshit. I posted that many theories are in fact still called theories but which are in fact science. My post was more than appropriate, it was warranted.
AFA your little whining conspiracy video, keep spreading the lies and let your delicious speak for themselves. You can post and/or believe anything you want but that doesn't make it true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:36PM
If the fight path wasn't possible, what does that mean? That we were just seeing swamp gas refracting the light from Venus when we thought we were seeing aircraft crash into buildings?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:33PM
Would you please help those of us who don't want to sit through a documentary that's 40 minutes of images floating about to a voice over and tell us more about why the flight trajectory couldn't have been correct and why that would even be important?
Two aircraft collided with buildings in New York. Of what importance was the flight path? Can this help us understand why the official story about there being no controlled demolition is incorrect? Is there some other significance?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:12PM
They are the 'center' to Islam, religiously speaking. Both Mecca and Medina are in Saudi Arabia, putting them similiarly to Jerusalem for Jews and Vatican City for Catholics (Many 'Christians' would consider Israel the center, in much the same way many Muslims consider its locations important for their own pilgrimage needs.)
Point being: If you look deeper, the US, European, and Saudi Arabian leadership all have benefits to be gained by ensuring these continued conflicts locally and abroad. It is what gives them the power to keep their citizenry in line and distracted from domestic issues of which they should be intimately aware and involved in remedying. But instead they are distracted by the actions of or activities in each other's backyards and how xxx is going to infringe upon their way of life, instead of how their own leadership is doing exactly that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:56AM
If the USA was going to bomb, invade, and occupy a country after 9/11, wouldn't have been more logical to hit the place where 15 of the 19 perpetrators came from?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:12AM
The only flights allowed out of the US in the immediate aftermath of the attacks carried Bush's buddies among the Saudi royals and Bin laden families.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @02:54AM
If they were really in on it, they probably wouldn't have been hanging around the US at the time just in case they couldn't leave.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:00PM
If you can't let aircraft fly in general because the terrorists won, yet you know who the friends and family of terrorists, then its pretty safe to let them be the only planes allowed in the sky because they're probably not going to crash their own planes.
Its a "why did you rob banks" "because thats where the money is". If you know they're connected to the terrorists then they're more predictable than the general public full of sleeper agents waking up or WTF. So they're the safest most predictable people to put in the air.
Also if you know the only civilians in the air are friends and family of terrorists, then the rather impressive anti-aircraft war machine can have an itchy trigger finger... randomly shooting down planes today, for example, would be really bad PR because most of the passengers today are unquestionably innocent civilians. But the friends and family of terrorists are very safe for us to put in the only planes in the sky, because there's no need for complicated RoE if they divert fro flight plan... perfectly OK to just shoot them down, no problemo. Its not going to be hard to explain on national TV.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:12AM
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to bomb, invade, and occupy the country where all the planning was done, and where funds came from?
But you can't occupy yourself or the friend in the Middle East, now can you?
Wouldn't it logical to go after the people who skipped office on the day of 9/11 and at least ask them about it (with some persuasion [wikipedia.org], of course)?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:37AM
Right - and wrong.
Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds. We had legitimate reason to kick Afghanistan's ass. Of course, we screwed that pooch royally - we should have done a punitive campaign, and not even bothered to declare war on them.
But, yes, it would have made sense to attack Saudi Arabia for the actions of their citizens. It made zero sense to attack Iraq over something which none of their citizens were involved in. As evil as Saddam Hussein was, he WAS a "stabilizing force" in the region. Today, there are no stable forces in that region, thus DAESH.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:11AM
> Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.
That's a stretch.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM
> Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.
That's a stretch.
Despite the fact that no war was ever declared, since war is illegal under the UN Charter? It was just a prelude to a 16 year occupation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM
No stretch at all. Apparently, you have little understanding of warfare, or the history of war.
Definition of casus belli
plural casus belli \ˈkä-ˌsüs-, ˈkā-ˌsüs-\
: an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict
It only took two gunshots, or one murder, to start World War One - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm [eyewitnesstohistory.com]
Yes, the Taliban most certainly supplied the US with a casus belli. We had every justification necessary to invade their nation, to bomb them into the stone age, to shoot down any resistance, and to take any prisoners we deemed necessary.
And, I'll repeat, we never should have declared war. We go in, we punish the government, we hunt down Osam bin Laden and company, destroy some infrastructure, then get the hell out - leaving the Taliban to rebuild all the shit we destroyed. Or, leaving the Taliban to be overthrown by the people who are pissed off at them for provoking the US into invading.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 16 2016, @01:11AM
From a November 2001 news story:
-- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/03/extradite.htm [usatoday.com]
The United States blamed Mr. bin Laden for bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In response it attacked (the story goes on to say) "a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan thought to be linked to the Saudi exile." I don't know why it used its military rather than filing charges against Mr. bin Laden and attempting to extradite him, as the Saudis reportedly wanted to do.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 16 2016, @01:35AM
I just woke up a bit ago, but I'm having trouble with that article, beginning with the first sentence.
"CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said"
1998? Huh? That was 3 years BEFORE 9/11/01, am I not right? Math can be difficult sometimes, but I thought I had that much mastered. More coffee . . . .
Alright, the coffee has been effective. Yes, in response to the bombings of our embassies, the US attacked bin Laden where they thought they could hurt him.
There is no indication that the US knew what Faisal knew, at that point in time. Nor is there anything to indicate that Faisal isn't just looking for a little self-aggrandizement in tht interview. Nothing in the article suggests that the individual who "agreed" to extradite bin Laden would or could have carried through on the half-promise. Mohammed Omar wasn't exactly a supreme dictator in Afghanistan - his word carried weight, but so did that of many other mullahs, muftis, and whatever else.
Bottom line - there was no formal agreement, or even official discussions, where Afghan officials were promising to turn bin Laden over to the US. What you have unearthed is merely some informal talk between a member of the House of Saud, and the mullah. The conclusion you have drawn may or may not be correct. Without the attack on Afghan soil, then perhaps those informal talks may have advanced into more formal negotiations - but you can't know that.
If Faisal was having these informal discussions, did he inform the US of them? Was the US aware that the mullah was willing to agree to an extradition? How does extradition even work in a Muslim country? There's a court, I imagine, composed of - judges? Mullahs and imams? An impartial jury?
I think you've dug up some good information, but jumped a little to far to arrive at your conclusion.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 16 2016, @04:51AM
Thank you for the response. Except for part of my last sentence, I was just quoting and paraphrasing material from the news story. The Guardian [theguardian.com] makes a similar inference to that in the AP story in USA Today (that missile attacks by the United States harmed the chances for prosecuting bin Laden), and remarks:
When I said that the United States did not file criminal charges against Mr. bin Laden nor attempt to extradite him, that was my own unsupported statement. Please correct me, if I'm mistaken.
My post was in response to your statement that "Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and [friends]." Mr. bin Laden was said to have been operating training camps for terrorists inside Afghanistan, allegedly in connection with attacks such as the one on the USS Cole. What I assumed you meant by your statement was that Afghanistan's government refused to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice for doing so, whether in their own courts or in another country's. Did I misconstrue what you wrote? If not, do you have any information about the evidence of Mr. bin Laden's guilt, or generally the effort to prosecute him? It may just be my ignorance, but 'm not aware that such a thing happened.
You wrote:
I have the same impression. It looks to me as though the United States may not have asked Afghanistan to turn bin Laden over for prosecution. If Prince Turki al-Faisal--who, according to the AP article, had at one time been a friend of Osama bin Laden--gave a true account, it indicates that someone within the government of Afghanistan had at one time been willing to discuss bin Laden's extradition. Of course, turning him over to Saudi Arabia on charges of "anti-government agitation and opposition to the presence of U.S. troops" and turning him over to the United States for, presumably more serious, charges related to bombings are different propositions.
Besides the articles about the prince's claim, I found a BBC News article dated 12 September 2001 which quotes the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan:
It goes on to say:
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 16 2016, @05:46AM
To be honest - I've never dug into the US efforts to have bin Laden extradited, either before or after 9/11/01.
Alright, I'll be even more honest here. I vaguely recall statements by the Bush administration that the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over to us. I never bothered to dig into the exchanges between our countries. I can't say whether the US made feeble attempts, ordinary attempts, or extraordinary attempts to have bin Laden turned over to us. I just accepted the word of the administration and the media that the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden.
It is possible that the same Bush who went on an adventuristic war in Iraq was intent on invading Iraq, and that he DID NOT make an honest effort to have bin Laden extradited.
That might be an interesting thing to research - but, right now, at this point in time, I'm not ready to take up that course of research.
If you feel up to it, can I ask you to share? Unless and until one of us makes the effort, we can remain blissfully ignorant . . .
And, I'm doing just a wee bit of soul searching, as well. In 2002, when the nation was preparing to invade Iraq, I made it a priority to learn more about Iraq, and the likely results of an invasion. I was very vocal about my opposition to invading. So - WTF didn't I bother with Afghanistan? I just accepted the fact that the Taliban had thumbed their noses at us, and that we should go in and kick their asses.
Maybe it's because I have been to Iraq, but I've never been to Afghanistan? Maybe that influenced my attitudes toward the two different countries. Maybe, maybe, maybe, but I'm thinking . . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM
Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.
Osama bin Laden dead since 2001 [youtube.com].
A former head of a state definitely knows more than you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:45AM
Yes, because no head of state has ever been fooled by propaganda. The lady says "I could be wrong" - she obviously does NOT subscribe to your theory of "the infallibility of heads of state".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:04AM
What makes you so sure that she has been fooled? (Note that she has inside knowledge, which you don't have.)
Normal people, who know a thing or two are usually unsure. Propagandists are always sure, 100%.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:15AM
I can't say with certainly when bin Laden died - but I'm pretty damned sure that he was still alive after he escaped Tora Bora in December of 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora_Bora [wikipedia.org] If he had been killed during that confrontation, the US and allies would have crowed about it, endlessly.
Sorry, but anyone who claims that he died in 2001 is sadly mistaken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:24AM
the US and allies would have crowed about it, endlessly.
Crowed about cold blooded murder in an illegal war, yes? The ends do not justify the means.
There is a little known fact that Iraq war, its invasion and destruction started in March 2003. And that war would not have been possible if the illegal Afghan war and invasion had concluded in 2001.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:31AM
Gunning down an armed man isn't "cold blooded murder". And, your description of Afghanistan as an illegal war may sound good at an activist rally, but it doesn't make the grade in either scholarly circles, or a court of law. Once again, the Taliban gave the US a just reason to invade.
It appears that we can agree that there was no just reason for invading Iraq.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:34AM
This page appears to be a pretty comprehensive list of statements and/or videos released by Osama bin Laden. A couple of the latest videos were controversial, in that, some claimed they were released by imposters. But, even accounting for that possibility, bin Laden appeared in videos as late as 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4628932.stm [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:17AM
That BBC site is not opening in https.
Videos can and have been faked and you know that, being a science person and all that.
Your american government lies all the time, so cannot be believed even if they spoke the truth some day. But most choose to believe them anyway.
"controversial, " you bet your black ass they were controversial wearing a gold ring, writing with right hand.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:40AM
So - you suspect that those videos released by Al Jazeera and other mid- and far-eastern news sources were all released in collusion with the CIA. Sounds reasonable - NOT!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:13PM
I would have been very surprised to see the US go after the Saudis in 2001, for one simple reason: The Saudi royal family (and the Saudi-based bin Laden family, for that matter) are business partners of the Bush family, to the point where the Saudi ambassador to the US is a Bush confidant. George H.W. and by extension George W. would have lot a *lot* of money had the US gone after Saudi Arabia militarily.
And yes, I think that was also part of the motivation of the decision to get involved in the Persian Gulf back in 1991-2, when we deployed our troops to protect the Saudis. Which was the move that according to Al Qaida propaganda videos was Osama bin Laden's primary motivation for attacking us.
Oh, and the chemical weapons in Iraq? The reason the Bush people were so certain Saddam Hussein had lots of them was that the same people had sold Saddam Hussein those weapons back in the Reagan administration, hoping that he'd use them to attack the Iranians.
Basically, we've spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to cover up mistakes made by the Reagan administration, and to benefit Bush business interests like the Carlyle Group.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 16 2016, @07:54PM
Oh, and the chemical weapons in Iraq? The reason the Bush people were so certain Saddam Hussein had lots of them was that the same people had sold Saddam Hussein those weapons back in the Reagan administration, hoping that he'd use them to attack the Iranians.
While I agree with the gist of your post I believe you are giving the "Bush people" too much benefit of the doubt. Yes they knew what WMD's Hussein had been sold, but they also had to know that anything he had had long ago been used (to gas the Kurds for example) or deteriorated to the point they were useless. Maybe they expected to find a deteriorated stockpile which they could have held up as "proof" Saddam had WMD's to a public bloodthirsty for revenge (or whatever). That they did not even find that exposes another level of their basic incompetence.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:59AM
The price of oil sky-rocketed as expected. Just saying...
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:42AM
Actually, it didn't. The price after 9/11 actually fell at bit as demand dried up.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:18AM
That's normal - when force is applied, many if not the most changes start with moves in the opposite direction.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:02AM
Reason for Afghan war: Mineral Deposits [whowhatwhy.org]
The REAL reasons behind The US led invasion of Afghanistan and Pakistan: Oil Pipeline from former Soviet states [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 16 2016, @02:12AM
The Taliban were under pressure from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime regarding opium poppies.
-- https://web.archive.org/web/20120419180557/http://reformdrugpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/AfghanTalibanOpium.pdf [archive.org]
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:07PM
What does philantropy mean?
In every culture, there are rich old men, who see their expiry date coming up, and decide to spend their money on a Good Cause(TM) for a change. Maybe they do this to go to heaven, if they're religious.
But the effect of their philantropy depends a lot on their culture.
Some might be inclined to build a large scientific library, where scholars are invited to freely study and discuss anything, for example. Or to support an academic hospital with enough resources to study a serious disease for 20 years, say.
If they're Wahabbis, maybe they believe that the best use of some of their assets is to give a fat brown envelope to some young firebrands in a neighbouring country who swear to defend their faith "by the sword" and believe "the best defense is a strong offense".