Political Crossfire Forums

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

All the "suspected hijackers" were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. 15 from Saudi Arabia.

Let's bomb the crap out of Mecca and Riyadh.

Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say

By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times

Saturday 02 August 2003

WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.

One U.S. official who has read the classified section said it describes "very direct, very specific links" between Saudi officials, two of the San Diego-based hijackers and other potential co-conspirators "that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental."

Said another official: "It's really damning. What it says is that not only Saudi entities or nationals are implicated in 9/11, but the [Saudi] government" as well.

...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

Bush Won't Reveal Saudi 9/11 Info

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2003

...

"Twenty-eight blank pages are now considered substantial evidence to proclaim the guilt of a country that has been a true friend and partner of the United States for over 60 years," the foreign minister said.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:
Didn't you see the link? CBS News?

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:
Didn't you see the link? CBS News?

Were those sources identified in the 9-11 Commission Report? Didn't you see the question? If Pelosi wants to strategically correct the direction of the War on Terror using the Report as a blueprint as promised to the electorate pre-election, then perhaps the tin foil hat theories should be re-located into the appropriate forum. :-D

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Mr. Sunshine wrote: agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:
Didn't you see the link? CBS News?

Were those sources identified in the 9-11 Commission Report? Didn't you see the question? If Pelosi wants to strategically correct the direction of the War on Terror using the Report as a blueprint as promised to the electorate pre-election, then perhaps the tin foil hat theories should be re-located into the appropriate forum. :-D
I wasn't being serious and I doubt blockhead was either.

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Mr. Sunshine wrote: agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:
Didn't you see the link? CBS News?

Were those sources identified in the 9-11 Commission Report? Didn't you see the question? If Pelosi wants to strategically correct the direction of the War on Terror using the Report as a blueprint as promised to the electorate pre-election, then perhaps the tin foil hat theories should be re-located into the appropriate forum. :-D

Well we don't know seeing as 28 pages of the report regarding Saudi Arabia were redacted.

Here's a Senate Amendment to Declassify the "28 Pages" of the 9/11 Report

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

What exactly do you want proof of?

Are you saying that 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report were NOT redacted? Are you saying that 15 of the 19 "suspected hijackers" were NOT from Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

What exactly do you want proof of?

Are you saying that 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report were NOT redacted? Are you saying that 15 of the 19 "suspected hijackers" were NOT from Saudi Arabia?

You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

What exactly do you want proof of?

Are you saying that 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report were NOT redacted? Are you saying that 15 of the 19 "suspected hijackers" were NOT from Saudi Arabia?

You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:

No redacted pages on Iran in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Your whole position relies on a Republican, who "believes" that there were more contacts.

It's a damn shame he son lost his Senate race in New Jersey.

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 19618 Location: Chicago

blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

:lol:

Good job.

They sure crack me up though....

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

Mr. Sunshine wrote: You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:
Why hasn't the public seen it? Surely there's something important there.

Norrin Radd · Joined: 08 Aug 2005 Posts: 2930

Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

What exactly do you want proof of?

Are you saying that 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report were NOT redacted? Are you saying that 15 of the 19 "suspected hijackers" were NOT from Saudi Arabia?

You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:

No one has seen the report because the American people allow traitors in our government to hide the truth from us.

Obviously the government has something to hide, or they would not have classified those 28 pages. Personally, I don't need to see the pages as I am capable of logical thought and common sense.

If you are capable of logic and common sense then you would already know that Saudi Arabia has been the largest supporter of terrorism in the world through funding and also through teaching hatred for the west in their schools.

The US Government has allowed the puppet government of Saudi Arabia to do almost whatever they want, as long as they keep honoring all their oil contracts and as long as the oil companies keep raking in those profits.

Common sense, it's not a new coin from the US mint.

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

No hijackers from Iraq. 15 from Saudi Arabia.

Osuma bin Laden is from Saudi, as is most of his money.

Money from Saudi Arabia, including from an immediate family member of Saudi's King, went directly to 9/11 hijackers.

Yup, Saudi Arabia is in deep.

But, some Hellbound Zionist says that some Iraqi intelligence agent was in the same former-soviet city as some alleged Al Qaeda member, therefor they met, thefore Saddam was involved in 9/11. Even though the CIA says the alleged Al Qaeda member was in the US at the time.

You think maybe your government doesn't really care who was behind 9/11, and only wanted to use the emotional impact to raise popular support for his war against the innocent people of Iraq?

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

Vexillum wrote: No hijackers from Iraq. 15 from Saudi Arabia.

Osuma bin Laden is from Saudi, as is most of his money.

Money from Saudi Arabia, including from an immediate family member of Saudi's King, went directly to 9/11 hijackers.

Yup, Saudi Arabia is in deep.

But, some Hellbound Zionist says that some Iraqi intelligence agent was in the same former-soviet city as some alleged Al Qaeda member, therefor they met, thefore Saddam was involved in 9/11. Even though the CIA says the alleged Al Qaeda member was in the US at the time.

You think maybe your government doesn't really care who was behind 9/11, and only wanted to use the emotional impact to raise popular support for his war against the innocent people of Iraq?

Ozzone · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:

So when are we going to attack Saudi Arabia?

Swampfox.f · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 248

Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

What alternate theory?

Swampfox.f · Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 248

Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: blockhead wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: L.A. Times? Can't you find a more credible source to support your alternative theory, like the 9-11 Comission Report? :lol:

Sorry, here's a FoxNews link

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93139,00.html

Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
By Liza Porteus

...

Media links with op-ed commentary are not the cornerstone of Pelosi's agenda to define a new direction on the War on Terror. Using that as your primary evidence base is beyind kind of sad. Alluding to the implications of the Commission against Saudi Arabia without factual disclosure form the Report is even sadder. Thank you for self defining this thread as an "Alternative Theory". :lol:

What exactly do you want proof of?

Are you saying that 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report were NOT redacted? Are you saying that 15 of the 19 "suspected hijackers" were NOT from Saudi Arabia?

You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:

Your just attacking his source and deflecting. Shame on you! :!oops:

Timmytour · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 6863

agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: You are using 28 pages of the report to support your position that no one in the public has seen? Sounds like an alternative method of debate to me. :rofl:
Why hasn't the public seen it? Surely there's something important there.

It's stuff the government doesn't want to reveal obviously but the beauty of it for them is this.

Should someone hazard a guess at what it contains, then it can be dismissed as conspiracy thinking".

Later, should those theories prove accurate, the powers that be can declare that they never actually denied it, an thus attempt to retain a modicum of "honesty"!

Of course it's a blatant cover up and distraction.

But it seems to work just fine on some people :wink: