Posted on 04/19/2015 5:23:00 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
9/11 COVER-UP? The latest claim isn’t from conspiracy theorists--it’s from a former top US Senator. He says documents prove Saudi Arabia helped pull off the attacks, and that the FBI hid the truth. Shep has details:
Also, they didn’t have to do the two most complicated and skill required actions”
1. Take off and clearing the take off airport flight pattern.
2. Landing on an air plane landing strip.
The structure did not have to melt, just to soften, for the result seen. No insulation on the steel.
As I understand it Saudi Arabia is mostly Wahhabi. What is the King to do, totally dis his complete populace? Even as king there are limitations to what you can do.
The government funds schools. It also disburses funds to the extended family, or at the very least provides them with kush well paying jobs.
The Kingdom’s money does finance a variety of problematic things. Does the king approve of them all?
Perhaps he does. I don’t believe so.
We give the Bush family a lot of crap for having a working relationship with the king and the government of Saudi Arabia. I think the families are friends. I don’t see the king being a big hater of America.
On 09/11 there were members of the Royals in the U. S. If the king were puppeteering the events of 09/11, don’t you think he would have had them all out of country?
If he was directing the actions, why would he offer New York a lot of money that Giuliani refused?
I’m just not sold on the level of evil nature folks like to attribute to the Saudi leadership.
Saudi Arabia has a long history of not being an enemy of the United States. In the old Oil Cartel days the Saudi government used to intercede on behalf of the United States so that the Arab states wouldn’t gouge the West for oil.
Saudi Arabia has big investments in the West. If the West crumbles, a significant port of the Saudi wealth dies with it. Attacking New York doesn’t strategically enhance Saudi Arabia’s standing in any way.
Saudi Arabia has more to fear from it’s regional threat Iran that it does the U. S. by a very large margin. Why would it want to neutralize the U. S.? It just doesn’t make sense for it to.
Thanks for the mention. I don’t discount Turkey’s involvement. I will note, that immediately after our supply of arms and funds to the enemies of the Syrian government, ISIS rose from obscurity to be a dynamic force in the region.
We knew the forces against the Assad regime were al Qaeda at least in part. We actually gave funds to al Qaeda. Now there is no mention of al Qaeda, only ISIS. It’s as if al Qaeda threw off their al Qaeda jerseys and downed ISIS ones.
It’s like the Democrat party in the U. S. One day they’re Liberals and the Next they’re progressives.
What else changed? Nothing!
I’m not convinced your scenario plays out the way you think.
Did Hussein need Kuwait’s wealth? I don’t think so.
It had it’s own oil reserves and didn’t even use them to their full potential.
I think this was a power grab. I think he had his sights on more than Kuwait, and I’m not thinking Iran. I think he wanted the entire Arabian Peninsula.
If you look at the Saudi Arabian nation, it’s not that heavily populated. You take out the capital and you pretty much control the nation. Was that his plan? I don’t honestly know. Was Kuwait him testing the waters? Perhaps so. Perhaps not.
With a guy like Hussein, he doesn’t mellow out and get less dangerous. He and his sons were almost demonic people.
You know, as I write this I think of the people of Iraq. They have had to deal with Hussein, his sons, the war, the peace, and now ISIS.
These are people who are living what some folks want the U. S. to be like. They aren’t attacking other nations now. They don’t have a massive military machine. They are minding their own business, trying to make a life for themselves.
Now this. If there’s anything to be learned from all this, it’s that sitting around in your own nation minding your own business isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I wouldn’t fault us on Iraq.
I would very much fault us for not going to war with Mexico to end the invasion.
That’s what needs to end. We also need to keep our forces on station around the world, or we become exactly what the Iraqis are today.
Let’s say the U. S. does pull back from everywhere and just stay within it’s borders. Do you think for one second the Left in the U. S. would be satisfied with that?
You know, or should, that the Left will not stop until we don’t have one person in uniform.
We need to hold our ground where we are, or lose it all.
IMO, Hussein had his eyes on the whole of the
But that fate would not have stopped on the Peninsula. It would have gobbled up Jordan, Egypt, Libya... down across Africa.
We’re talking about a massive occupation and swap-out of governments to become one massive nation.
During the process that effort would expend it’s energy to develop WMDs and seek more territory.
Why allow that to happen? It wouldn’t be good. It seems to me a stable region with governments in place is a much safer world.
We had a fire out here in Los Angeles, and the fire-fighters fought the blaze aggressively. They saved a 40 plus story building.
During the coverage of this fire and the dynamics involved, they spoke about temperatures and how those can compromise steel beams.
When I saw those planes impact the WTC towers, I had a pretty good idea those structures were in jeopardy. The fire temperatures were bound to be very high. When they did go down, it didn’t shock me at all.
I was surprised at the dynamics of them as they went down.
I had always thought a building like that would topple rather than collapse in on itself. I think the construction strategy contributed to the failure. It was a different type of construction.
The program I watched explained it quite well, but I don’t remember the intricacies of it now.
They did go down fast, but we’re talking so many floors, the weight of them in motion, the structure wasn’t built to withstand that sort of impact. It couldn’t possibly resist.
I know some folks want to make something of that, but it isn’t that hard to understand. The centrifugal force of the weight in motion can’t be stopped. The farther down the building the collapse goes, the more weight.
Okay, we have thirty floors coming down on one, then 31 coming down on 69, 32 coming down on 68...
Almost immediately you have one third of the whole structure coming down on one floor at a time, that floor collapsing, and coming down on the next.
You say it couldn’t happen. It did. Twice.
Good thing they didn’t topple. Quarter-mile-tall buildings would have caused massive collateral damage and loss of life.
Isn’t that the truth...
BJ KNEW!!! In 1996.
Read Dereliction of Duty.
If you can't tell the difference between a 747 and ANY other airplane, why should I believe anything else you propose?
Yours was the second objection I received.
Here’s a link to my response to the first.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3280974/posts?page=72#72
Duh.
Everything about the attacks originated in Saudi.
So it’s your contention that the U. S. Government packed enough explosives on every floor of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 for demolition so that each floor collapsed in a controlled demolition?
This would have required an operation big enough that nobody would be able to miss it. There are people who work on sight late at night. Housekeeping crews, maintenance, security... each of these groups with robust crews working in the facilities, and yet you think the government sneaked literally tons of explosives into the building, and set it up to blow with nobody the wiser.
After the explosions, nobody thought, you know, I did see a lot of strange people here.
Regular maintenance crews didn’t run into any of the munitions. Security just allowed strange people in to carry out the work. And even if they did infiltrate the normal workers, we’re talking about a massive operation.
Bud, you can spout anything you like, but at the end of the day what you say makes no sense at all.
Not trying to be mean to you, but what you are prattling off is nonsense.
I linked you to a video of building 7 burning with massive flames escaping the building, parts of the structure blowing out in to the street.
Several buildings around the perimeter were damaged due to the massive shaking and blowout from the main towers.
You don’t find that to be understandable? You don’t think public officials could tell building 7 was structurally unsound, and ready to fall on it’s own?
I’m not buying what you are selling here.
It’s now your premise that 10,000 gallons of jet fuel burned within one minute, and then there wasn’t enough oxygen to feed a fire.
Did you notice the smoke blowing off into the distance? At what point do you think the air was stagnant enough, that the fire wouldn’t be fed by oxygen that high up, and with the windows blown out on the entire floor(s)?
To me, you sound like you’ve bought into the truther line completely. I haven’t.
I would add, there must have been a terrible shaking going on all around that immediate area as the two towers fell. This could easily have been a contributor to the structural soundness of building 7.
I may be wrong, but it would be interesting to hear an engineer’s point of view on this.
I believe the Saudis knew bin Laden was up to bad tricks, and allowed the Princes to keep funding him.
Certainly the Saudi Government Funded Clerics supported, encouraged and applauded the attacks.
So, you’ve got Saudi personnel, leadership, funding, religious sanction, etc. all behind the attacks.
If that’s not Government Sponsored, it is everything short of a full Saudi attack on America.
The WTC towers were built to survive one aircraft hit.
They weren’t built to survive one hit to each tower.
The water supply was adequate to supply the sprinkler system of one building; it wasn’t adequate to supply the sprinkler systems of both buildings simultaneously.
If you’re looking at this to make a case, I think you can make the case. Does that mean the case makes sense?
Saudi Arabia is a oil rich nation. The government there disburses monies to keep the populace placated. We see that funding as something evil, supportive of various “bad things”.
Is it? I’m not convinced it is. I do not think the Saudi Government was consciously funding Osama Ben Laden and his efforts to do severe damage to the United States. I an easily agree that the government was still funding all the groups it had been for decades, and that some of those funds wound up funding Laden’s efforts.
That is conjecture though, because we don’t actually have evidence that the Saudi government funded Ladan at all. We think that it may have an a round-about way, but we don’t know that for sure.
Goerge Soros or another vile player may have been helping Laden along. I’m not accusing Soros here, but merely using him as an example of some nut that might have been sympathetic to Laden’s desires. Russia may have been sympathetic. One or more of the princes may have been sympathetic. The sect of Islam most prominent in Saudi Arabia is vitriolically against America.
My problem with the view that Saudi’s government was involved, is that with 20,000 people here on education VISAs, on 19 took part in the attacks. They may have had more support we don’t know about, but with that large a body of potential attackers, if this had been a government run effort, there would have been a massive broad attack across the nation. It wouldn’t have been 19 individuals in four aircraft. It would have been upwards of 100 aircraft.
There is a lot of pent up animosity on the forum against Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure where it springs from, but I would urge folks to think if Iran, then Saudi Arabia. Don’t you guys see any difference in these two nations?
I see a lot of differences.
Interesting. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.