Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: 9/11 attacks carried out by US, Israel and Saudi Arabia: Expert
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 22, 2013
Author: staff
Post Date: 2013-12-22 02:13:21 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 626
Comments: 36

The September 11, 2001 attacks in the US were a “false flag” operation carried out jointly by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia with "Zionists playing the lead role," an analyst tells Press TV.

On Thursday, a US federal court ruled that relatives of people who died in the 9/11 attacks can sue Saudi Arabia, reversing a lower court ruling in 2002 that had found the kingdom immune from lawsuits.

The complaint states that much of the funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon came from Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, rejects the official narrative, saying Saudi Arabia is a "puppet of the US and other Western governments.”

“There were no hijackers, there were no hijackings, this has been proved in many, many ways,” Dr. Barrett said on Saturday. “Ten of the 19 guys they blamed were still alive after 9/11,” he added.

Rather, he said, “Saudi intelligence was used by the real perpetrators of Sept. 11 to create a legend, to set up the patsies who would be blamed for this event.”

Dr. Barrett said a “suppressed” report by the Congressional Joint Inquiry of 2002 would shed light on the true perpetrators of the attacks, should it become public. The controversial document, however, has remained classified to this day.

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) who chaired the inquiry at the time has stated that the document includes information “implicating a foreign government,” Dr. Barrett said. “But there has been such a cover-up,” he added.

The September 11 attacks, also referred to as 9/11 were a series of four coordinated attacks upon the US cities of New York and the Washington, DC which killed nearly 3,000 people.


Poster Comment:

Probably as accurate a 9/11 summary as you will find except for clarity US involvement was that part of US government which was and still is under the control of the Israeli lobby which included Bush, his henchmen and the majority of congress, aided by Jew duals in the judiciary.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

This article is on the mark.

Also, NORAD kept the fighters out over the Atlantic so they could not intercept the airliners. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-12-22   10:19:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: BTP Holdings (#1)

NORAD kept the fighters out over the Atlantic so they could not intercept the airliners. ;)

Just some Langley fighters were sent to the Atlantic, afaik, and probably not very far out -- possibly to patrol a sector for foreign military vessels that might be in the area.

9/11: INTERCEPTED YouTube video by Pilots for 9/11 Truth - link set to start at 22:25, which says:

"Say again where you want 'em?"

"Uh, we want 'em in the Whiskey 386 area."

Our fighter jets don't have to be very close to a target to hit it if they have to.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-12-22   14:40:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)

Our fighter jets don't have to be very close to a target to hit it if they have to.

They knew those airliners were off course and headed to NYC. What I fail to see is how those jets could get that close to the towers. They were flown to that point by AWACS aircraft. That is the only possibility. Recall, Ahmadinejad said the U.S was behind the events of 9-11. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-12-22   15:26:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: BTP Holdings (#3)

They knew those airliners were off course and headed to NYC. What I fail to see is how those jets could get that close to the towers. They were flown to that point by AWACS aircraft. That is the only possibility.

Did NORAD Send The "Suicide" Jets?

Think about it. NORAD's job is to protect us from enemy bombers and missiles sent over our skies by foreign powers. Would those foreign powers be considerate enough to put transponders on their bombers and missiles so NORAD could locate them and shoot them down? Of course not. NORAD is expected to find unidentified flying objects without transponders. [...] NORAD uses a network of ground-based radars, sensors and fighter jets to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any threats to the continent."

Transponders help to filter out all identifiable aircraft for NORAD and allow them to focus on those craft that are unidentified. An aircraft flying without a transponder gets special attention. NORAD must have known when each of the transponders in the four "suicide" jets was turned off, and must have known immediately. At all times, NORAD must have known the location of each of the four planes. [...]

Before we go any further, let us consider the implications of the so-called hijackers/suicide pilots turning off the transponders. If the "hijackers" knew enough about transponders to shut them off, they surely must have known the aircraft could be tracked and located by conventional radar. Why, then, did the "hijackers" turn off the transponders? There's a question to ponder.

Put in other words, why did the suicide pilots want to keep the name of the airline, the flight number, the altitude, and the speed of the aircraft a secret, even though the latitude and longitude of the aircraft could not be kept secret? Turning off the transponders would not have helped the mission if NORAD was doing its job. The suicide pilots would have known NORAD would not be fooled by the trick.

[...] Remember, real hijackers would have believed they had, at the very most, a 19-minute window of opportunity before NORAD interception, as proven by the Payne Stewart case. They would not have believe they had an 80-minute window of opportunity, as NORAD gave them on September 11 (Flight 11 went amiss at 8:15-8:20 a.m, Pentagon hit 80 minutes later at 9:40 a.m.).

No. "Real" hijackers did not pull off this caper.

That article agrees with you about remote controlled aircraft but consider, too, that the 2nd alleged plane (remote controlled or not) reportedly crashed at an angle with much of its fuel spilled outside of the building. Likely, that wouldn't all have exploded in the air and, at the time, the buildings crumbling weren't much expected if at all. I don't recall reading that anyone below was splashed with jet fuel and I don't recall reading, either, that such hazardous conditions on the ground (with burning debris falling around) and containment concerns were comparable in the least to this recent report of a non-fiery crash:

Brit Airways 747 Slices Building On SA Takeoff: Fuel spillage was reported from the aircraft after the smash but this was contained by the airport fire services.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-12-24   11:03:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GreyLmist, BTP Holdings (#12)

That article agrees with you about remote controlled aircraft but consider, too, that the 2nd alleged plane (remote controlled or not) reportedly crashed at an angle with much of its fuel spilled outside of the building. Likely, that wouldn't all have exploded in the air and, at the time, the buildings crumbling weren't much expected if at all. I don't recall reading that anyone below was splashed with jet fuel and I don't recall reading, either, that such hazardous conditions on the ground (with burning debris falling around) and containment concerns were comparable in the least to this recent report of a non-fiery crash:

As seen from the videos of the impact, the fuel ignited once the plane had penetrated the exterior of the tower. It came out of the exit hole, creating the huge fireballs witnessed by those who were there and on multiple cameras.

FormerLurker  posted on  2013-12-24   11:15:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: FormerLurker, GreyLMist (#14)

Recall, that Larry Silverstein collected double indemnity TWICE for the loss of the Towers. Could it be that he was an insider as well? ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-12-24   16:15:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: BTP Holdings (#24) (Edited)

Recall, that Larry Silverstein collected double indemnity TWICE for the loss of the Towers. Could it be that he was an insider as well? ;)

Of course BTP, it's been suggested by many videos and many blogs. Remember his words, "pull it"?

It all ties in to him, Enron, the missing trillions from the Pentagon (thanks to Dov Zakheim), PNAC, pipelines UNOCAL wanted to build in Afghanistan, and matters held in terms of CIA material at the NYC CIA office formerly located at WTC7.

And oh yeah, those behind it wanted an excuse to launch the Patriot Act and other tyrannical legislation along with their perpetual bogus "war on terror"...

FormerLurker  posted on  2013-12-24   16:29:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: FormerLurker (#26)

You remember the movie, "Three Days of the Condor"? In it, Robert Redford is a "book reader" who works at a CIA facility in NYC. They uncover facts that there is a secret CIA plot to bring down the U.S. Government. Redford goes out to lunch via the basement exit, and avoids the murders of his co-workers. When the bad guys find out he escaped, they stop at nothing to kill him. Eventually, he comes in from the cold, but gives the story to the NY Times. It never gets printed, however, which is a part of the ending of the plot. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2013-12-25   16:29:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

        There are no replies to Comment # 27.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest