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: 651
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 # 29.

#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  


#18. To: FormerLurker (#14)

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.

Answering service: Well, except for all the fuel that reportedly didn't spontaneously combust so and went pouring down elevator shafts, etc., instead as if it and those fumes were somehow disconnected.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-12-24   11:56:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: GreyLmist (#18)

Well, except for all the fuel that reportedly didn't spontaneously combust so and went pouring down elevator shafts, etc., instead as if it and those fumes were somehow disconnected.

Of course they were connected. Thing is, even the NIST report states that 90% or so of the fuel was consumed in the first few minutes, mostly outside the building.

That's why the story about the towers falling due to fire is pure BS, the fuel burnt out within the first few minutes and could not have heated the structure to the point of causing the steel to weaken.

FormerLurker  posted on  2013-12-24   12:31:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: FormerLurker (#20)

Of course they were connected. Thing is, even the NIST report states that 90% or so of the fuel was consumed in the first few minutes, mostly outside the building.

That's why the story about the towers falling due to fire is pure BS, the fuel burnt out within the first few minutes and could not have heated the structure to the point of causing the steel to weaken.

And we both know about how reliable the ZioNISTa report is -- somewhere around 99.99% not at all, I'm guessing.

4um posts on the Whiskey 386 area here and here. The reason I think it's significant if there were vessels possibly test-firing/wargaming or whatever then in that sector has to do with technologies that might have caused the towers to fall as they did.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-12-24   13:25:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: GreyLmist (#21) (Edited)

The reason I think it's significant if there were vessels possibly test-firing/wargaming or whatever then in that sector has to do with technologies that might have caused the towers to fall as they did.

Occam's Razor is the precept that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Being that explosives were more than capable of bringing down the towers, especially if they were high yield explosives wired to detonate sequentially floor to floor downwards, I'd lean towards that explanation.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you're truly trying to convince the average person that the towers did NOT fall as claimed by the government, ie. steel became weak and the building "pancaked", then the simpler (and MUCH more probable explanation) should suffice.

Thing is GL, if I didn't already KNOW that it is IMPOSSIBLE for those towers to have fallen into their own footprint as claimed by the government due to burning jet fuel, the exotic and far fetched tales of "invisible beam weapons" and a massive effort to fabricate fake live video by ALL news media covering the live event, along with claims that any and all participants ranging from police and fire crews to victims and bystanders are part of the "fakery", I would be fairly convinced that 9/11 "truthers" are a few cans short of a six and are off their rockers. In other words those tales would convince me that the government is probably telling the truth and those who say anything different are liars.

Of course there are other parts of the story which are impossible, such as the extraordinary bit of flying on the part of Hanjour in terms of flying several feet off the ground at over 500 mph and hitting the Pentagon square on at ground level, along with the failure to intercept those planes, the impossible cell phone calls, etc. So myself I'd still doubt the official story, but for those unknowledgeable in regards to the facts and details of what is claimed, tales of energy beams (which NOBODY saw or could even attempt to explain) capable of bringing down skyscrapers sequentially from top to bottom floor, without harming any adjacent buildings, and for ALL news media to have conspired to launch a fabricated live feed created ahead of time, yet broadcast in real time as events unfolded, well then it may well just have been 19 cave dwellers who did it, it'd be more probable, even taking into consideration how impossible the story truly is.

FormerLurker  posted on  2013-12-24   16:22:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: FormerLurker (#25)

Occam's Razor is the precept that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Occam's Razor is lizard s**t... - halfpasthuman.com

...what is easily understood is that ANYONE trotting out old Occam's razor to 'explain' any issue, is only trying to settle it with a control technique. For instance. Occam's razor says that JFK was shot by a single nutter assassin who was almost instantly killed by his own assassin.

GreyLmist  posted on  2013-12-28   5:19:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 29.

        There are no replies to Comment # 29.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest