Home | About | Donate

Were the Saudi's Behind 9/11?


#1

Were the Saudi's Behind 9/11?

Home Page Author: 
Eric Margolis

Claims that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks on America have been circulating since 2001. The Saudis have denied all such claims even though 15 of the 19 aircraft hijackers were Saudi citizens.

This week, allegations of Saudi involvement reignited as one of the men convicted in the 9/11 plot, Zacarias Moussaoui, reasserted the allegations. Moussaoui, who is in US maximum security prison, charges senior Saudi princes and officials bankrolled the 9/11 attacks and other al-Qaida operations. He may have been tortured and has mental problems.


#2

I do not think so because the Saudi's would seem to not have had any motive. Cui Bono? Israel and the MIC come to mind!


#3

May have been tortured? Really? In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, testifying at a Benghazi hearing : "At this point, what difference does it make?" Much like the various Israeli atrocities, who is to blame is utterly irrelevant. Ask the giant banks. There are those that pay for their crimes, and those that simply don't.


#4

Many minds remain within allowable bounds. Considered "fringe" (as per these allowable boundaries) are comments that assert that the Bush Junta (as documented in at least one memo that hit Condi Rice's desk) knew of the pending event and did nothing to stop it, to Mr. Margolis showing verve in mentioning Saudi funding. Of course this rabbit hole goes much deeper, and with so much credible evidence now available (for open minds and inquiring eyes) to see, neither of these explanations can explain the lie that gravity was defied, the Thermite burning long after, several stock pull anomalies, and other coincidental "wonders."

And so long as respected authors stay within the allowable bounds, like Monday morning quarterbacks, they keep the "fans" focused on minutiae and irrelevant plays so that a deeper examination of "the game" itself need never occur.


#6

Of course the buildings were thermited from within.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the video of building # 7 collapsing: ...
{{ Common Dreams won't let "newcomers" supply links. In other words, evidence. So google: ... "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth" and click on video. Scroll down to "Free Fall" }}

The official theory is that, even though no other steel frame skyscrapers have ever collapsed from fire, building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and the other two, fell by "pancaking." That is, the top story fell down on the next one which then collapsed, so that the top two then fell on the third, and so on down to the bottom. The video, however, shows the opposite. The roof and the top stories remain intact. The building seems to be falling from BELOW. Also there is no resistance and no irregularity of descent, which would be expected in a building laced with steel girders. It falls in the same manner as buildings fall which have been imploded from within: ... {{ Youtube: ... Unbelieveable Tower Implosion }} ... Just as in building # 7, the roof remains intact until the very end.

If you are more mathematically inclined than I am, I suppose you could verify that the two buildings demolished here fell at free fall, as the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth testify. Comparing the two videos, however, should get the idea across. For other evidence look around in Architects and Engineers.


#7

Thank you.


#8

The buildings did not collapse at free fall - and even buildings that are demolished in a deliberate controlled manner do not collapse at free fall - therefore you assertion that they collapsed at free fall is not evidence for 'controlled demolition" even if they did collapse at "free fall".

In other words, you are committing a type of logical error known as being "not even wrong".


#9

Possible motive: Doing as you are told by their USA masters.


#10

Or your Israeli friends.

mcp


#11

Follow the money. Just before the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, Washington was all abuzz about looming cutbacks in the U.S. defense budget, the "peace dividend" promised by the collapse of the Soviet Union a decade earlier. America was left without a major credible enemy and its obscene level of military spending was in peril for the first time since WW II. The 9/11 attacks corrected that very nicely, creating a new "superenemy" that would require an open-ended military campaign with unlimited budgets. The current flap over ISIS -- which seems to have evolved from U.S.-funded "moderate rebels" in Syria -- is a booster shot for that initial dose of political serendipity. Look closely at who gets all the military contracts and which foreign nations profit handsomely from America's preoccupation with "terrorism," which is whatever Uncle Sam feels like calling it that week..


#12

These sorts of mainstream articles, such as by Margolis here, function as what the CIA would call "limited hangouts". As part of the MSM, he concedes certain limited claims against the Saudis and their possible role in the 9/11 attacks. But there are some key pieces of the story he omits, I would guess deliberately:
- Prince Bandar bin Sultan is considered to be very close to the Bush family, so much so that his nickname is "Bandar Bush". I'll bet the Bushes would know what he's been up to.
- John Perkins in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" tells of his role in helping to corrupt a certain Saudi prince in the 1970s, to get him to sign on to the long-unacknowledged security-for-oil agreement reached between the U.S. and Saudi Royalty. This scenario was repeated many fold by other US assets and other Saudi royals -- might this forced corruption not be a main cause for the blowback from other Saudis such as Osama we call Wahhabism?
- Margolis doesn't mention the lawsuit of the 9/11 families against the Saudis, in which James Baker III, the Bush family's main fixer, is defending the Saudis. For what other reason would Moussaoui be given a platform to discuss these issues at this particular time?
- David Rohde, a New York Times reporter kidnapped and held by the Taliban years ago, told Terry Gross of Fresh Air in an interview that his captors maintained that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. The two of them effectively laughed it off, but what reason would the Taliban have for saying this, for not crediting their fellow Muslim brothers with such a coup against their enemies?
- one last point -- so Margolis admits some Saudi royalty may be implicated in supporting 9/11, and according to his article, "Israel is a secret ally of the Saudi royal family." Can anyone here add 1 + 1 and get 2? Any possible implications of this secret alliance, with regard to the events of 9/11? Maybe this is what is at the core behind the redaction of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report?

As others have noted, the difference between what constitutes to the MSM a "conspiracy theory" versus legitimate grounds for debate apparently rests on who is doing the reporting and whom it implicates. I'm not waiting for Terry Gross to interview bestselling authors John Perkins, Russ Baker, or Craig Unger. It has not happened, nor will it ever happen. The MSM has effectively black-listed them for their work, as it raises way too many uncomfortable, legitimate "conspiracy theory" questions.


#13

Excellent points!


#14

Thanks for pointing that out Yunzer. They collapsed at near free fall, as if that mass of concrete and steel had almost zero resistance. Ain't that somethin'? NIST has conceded however that WTC7 at initiation of collapse was indeed in free fall. WTC7 is just such a bugger to so many who wish it would just go away.


#15

Well, first of all, when something collapses, be it buildings or pit mines or steep mountainsides, it usually does indeed accelerate at only a little slower than free-fall because the force required to decelerate a moving mass containing kinetic energy is many times the force of the mass's weight. For example, a pane of window glass can support the weight of a bowling ball with a considerable factor of safety - but if you dropped the bowling ball through 100 panes of glass spaced 10 feet apart, starting at 10 feet above the first pane, the ball would accelerate to the ground at just a little slower than free fall, to the sound of lots of glass breaking. And yes, structural steel connections (bolts, welds) do indeed break just like glass if loaded way beyond their shear or tensile strength.

But at any rate, You missed my point - even if the rate of collapse were enigmatic, it still would not be evidence in any way for deliberate demolition - to connect the two is a complete non-sequiter at very best, but mostly "not even wrong".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong


#16

Bowling ball analogies do conveniently ignore the principal question: who dropped the bowling ball. They don't drop by themselves, or because of weak forces with no history of ever causing them to drop.

But some individuals want everyone to give up asking why the bowling ball dropped, and are willing to behave in a very inappropriately hostile way toward those who won't shut up about it. Their unexplained hostility toward scientific evidence that the bowling ball really didn't "just drop" raises additional questions.


#17

well, if you watch the close-up videos of the upper floors, you clearly see the upper dozen-or-more floors dropping into the impact-and-fire damaged zone following buckling of the of the exterior columns. Basically you are saying that you don't that failure and collapse of man-made, or even natural, structures is possible at all if you think the collapse of the WTC is impossible.


#19

It's always struck me as strange that for all these years, nobody has questioned the choice of targets for the 9/11 attacks. Bringng down the towers killed a bunch of people but that's all. OK and it made a mess of a few city blocks. But that's it. If “OBL” or “Al Queda” really wanted to spread terror, and deeply humiliate the US, as well as cause serious disruption of the lives of millions, and likely start a period of economic chaos, I can think of several other targets whose aftereffects would last years. Maybe even decades. IOW, grave long-lasting damage that might never be able to be completely fixed.
Such targets exist and would have been easily reachable by the same airliners.

Of course if it wasn't “OBL” or “Al Queda”who were behind the attacks but forces closer to home (say Washington or Texas frinstance) then the choice of targets that would merely kill some people but do no other long-lasting or irreparable damage, (not to mention maybe even wreck the economy) makes a lot more sense.


#20

In 2000-2001 before 911, I know man name Edwar Aram in LA. He said he was from Israel but he looked like an Arab. Aram had Twin Towers blueprints and military Humvee. LAPD Van Nuys officers was called to his house in a domestic disputed and saw the two blueprints boxes on Jan. 4 2001 but refused to believed his evil plans. After 911 Aram was gone. I think this was in the 28 missing pages. Aram might be the 20th man.


#21

I've never forgotten listening to recordings of some of the firemen deployed to the WTC, particularly those deployed to the points-of-impact areas. One fire crew's leader is heard clearly saying the fire was already burning itself out, that the ambient temperature in their area already had tolerably cooled, that there was no significant structural damage visible to his crew's trained eyes, and that the job of extinguishing the flames was "probably a one or two-line [fire hose] job." Other recorded transmissions included several firemen at different levels within the buildings (most while climbing toward the impact zones) spontaneously reporting explosions coming from above their positions after the projectile impacts against each building. Those reports came minutes before each building collapsed.

The inconsistencies and the gaping holes in the narrative during and after the attacks; the spinning of the official story by government spokespeople, MSM talking heads and surrogates like Hearst company-owned Popular Science; the strange behavior of bush, jr. and cheney following the first impacts; the statistically improbable odds of a mass attack on several targets occurring on the very day a super-classified nationwide, coordinated military readiness exercise involving all four branches was being conducted; the extraordinary financial manipulations surrounding the WTC insurance package and the stocks of the involved airlines for which there has never been an accounting (SEC dropped the investigation for "lack of evidence"); and finally, the clumsy political manipulation of every aspect of the 9-11 commission's formation, investigation and conclusions are enough to arouse the suspicions and concern of all but the most credulous US citizens.

The nightmarish truth about what really happened lurks in the darkness of the minds and hearts of those who carried out this crime against humanity: Saudis, Israelis and their counterparts in this country and elsewhere abroad. My fervent desire is to see as many of those soulless men and women as possible brought to justice before they can take those secrets to their graves. In a functioning democracy, that inquiry would have been begun a long time ago. Truth and Reconciliation, baby.


#28

Not to mention that the lessee of the entire WT properties, including Bldg. 7, said on WNYC radio shortly after 9/11/01 that Bldg. 7 was "pulled," industry jargon for taken down by demolition. Very likely, he was able to collect on insurance or some other funds and build whatever he wanted on that site.