9/11 COVER-UP?

Facebook account of Shepard Smith ^ | April 13, 2015 150413 | Shepard Smith

[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:

[dragnet2]

I’m not surprised by this one bit and will not be surprised if the story is true. The Senator and others claim to have hard evidence and are attempting to get more.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m comfortable with you thinking that I am blowing it here.

I don’t think it’s out of line to think massive weight caused the floors to fail and collapse straight down.

The main architect of the Twin Towers is comfortable with the findings. He has surmised how and why the structure failed. He is saddened that his baby didn’t hold up, but I think it’s amazing it held together at all after the impact.

At any rate, thanks for you explanation.

Take care.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Falling debris from the other two burning buildings made it catch fire IIRC.

Burning buildings do fall down.

[DoughtyOne]

No problem. I was sure I’d heard 747s were involved, but thinking back I didn’t remember seeing one, so I thought I better check it out.

Thank you.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Hypothetically speaking... it was the Martians.

After all if they had this far reaching plan then why didn't they do it in 1993 instead of using a car bomb?

But believe as you like; that is what the "JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald" people do. They completely ignore the fact that it was Jackie who did it. Hypothetically speaking...

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

So the plane did not burn?

Ok, whatever you say honey child.

[MaxMax]

It's true, because I read it on the internet.

Nine were from Saudi and there's also rumors that some were trained on our bases.
Trained for what I do not know, that's the hole in the story.

[beelzepug]

Minoru Yamasaki was the architect of the towers. He died in 1986. How was he able to comment on anything to do with 9/11?

[MHGinTN]

Well sweetums, the jet fuel was gone in less than minutes, and the furnishings of an office building do not burn at ‘thousands of degrees’. What turned the upper thirty-five floors to dust before they reached Manhattan?

[DoughtyOne]

I saw a report on the towers and why they went down.

There was a presentation by the original architect. Now perhaps they mixed footage with him and talked about the collapse over those photos. All I know is that they did show him and I had thought he did a retrospective. If that’s in error, I apologize.

I had thought I saw him reflecting on the collapse, but that may be in error, if your comments are accurate.

I had also thought he addressed the floors and why they did what they did.

It is possible it was someone else doing the presentation segment, and I mistook him for the orginal architect. It may have merely been someone associated with the original design team, and I mistook him for the actual main architect.

[DoughtyOne]

10 thousand gallons of fuel do not burn in one minute.

[Eleutheria5]

If a Senator said it, it must be true./s

[sargon]

I do believe that Saudi nationals were involved, but that doesn’t mean the government of Saudi Arabia was.

But doesn't the government of Saudi Arabia massively fund the madrassa schools where extremist wahhabism takes root?

The government of Saudi Arabia is absolutely complicit in creating Islamic terror. It just likes to remove itself by a degree or two to maintain a veneer of innocence.

And a veneer is all it is.

[lentulusgracchus]

Obama sent in arms and funds to combat the Syrian government. I think his arms and funds wound up as the basis for ISIS. I think he accidentally or even purposefully funded and armed ISIS.

I think ISIS has many fathers, none of them necessarily named Obama, no matter how many things he may be guilty of. Walid Shoebat points at the Sunni "creeping theocrats" running the anti-Kemalist (and counterrevolutionary, insofar as it would overturn much of Ataturk's modernization of Turkey) Erdogan regime, which is up to its knuckles in the rise of ISIS. Shoebat (who isn't necessarily spot-on) accuses the Turks of wanting to help re-establish the Caliphate (which they owned), and then dominate it politically. There's also Pan-Turkism, an idea in Turkey that would see the Turkish government reaching out to Turkic peoples from the Mediterranean to the Pacific Ocean (the easternmost Turks live on the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk). A Sunni Caliphate would make a good bolster to the formation of such a far-flung ethnic association. Talk about identity politics ....

[lentulusgracchus]

Oh, for God's sake! What idiocy! You're an embarrassment to the entire Net.

[Cronos]

hi DO, we debate again :)

What possible gain would the Saudis get from damaging the United States? --> In 2000 Bush was not bothered with foreign adventures and under Clinton, the Iraq mess was left to smoulder. The Saudis would have seen no action and definitely had nothing more to fear from a defeated Saddam. I don't believe the Saudi government was behind 9/11, but don't put it past some Wahabbi crazed princes from doing something

We were standing between them and Saddam Hussein. -- Saddam was weakened heavily in 2001 -- the Kurds were practically independent and the Shias were stronger. As we now know, in the late 90s he realised that his earlier hardline approach against jihadis (and yes, he was hard against Sunni jihadis, Iranis and the Wahabbis before 1991 -- that Gulf War one was a colossal mistake in my humble opinion) and was turning to political Islam (his lieutenants now purportedly lead the Islamic State's strategy)

We know of 19 people involved in the 2001 effort. If Saudi Arabia was truly behind this effort, there would have been literally thousands of active agents here. -- When we say "Saudi Arabia" remember that it is ruled by a family of literally thousands of princes -- all with money. These are tribal entities. We can probably say that the King at that time was not involved, but not much more

[Cronos]

Well, DO -- I believe that Gulf War One was a mistake.

1. Saddam was terrorising the Iranis
2. The Jihadis hated him and he killed them mercilessly
3. The Gulf absolute monarchies feared him and he kept them in check
4. Ultimately he would not have been able to stand up to Turkey and/or Egypt, so there was a natural limit to his powers

If Bush senior had not gone into Gulf War One then

1. Saddam would have got jiahdis like Al Qaeda etc. fighting him for threatening Wahabbiism - remember that Saddam was evil, but he was a secular evil dictator and the Wahabbis hated his ilk
2. He would have taken the money from the re-absorption of Kuwait and used it to continue the war with the Ayatollahs and this time probably won -- or at the least have bled the Iranis so badly they would not have time or money to focus on threatening anyone else
3. Have cowed the Saudis into giving him more money for him so less money going into madrassas across the Moslem world teaching Wahabbiism and spreading the message of jihad
4. Pushed Assad into more of an accomodation with Israel and possibly with Turkey

[FreedomStar3028]

This is the liberal’s trump card. All they gotta do is “prove” that Bush, and other Republican leadership at the time conspired, killed about 3,000 on 9/11, and more in the next 13 years.

This is how liberals retain control, forever.

This is how they take the guns.

This is how they kill us all.

Mark my words.

[Biggirl]

Revolt is coming.

[Cronos]

That is what the war was about—protecting the Saudis, the Gulf oil states and Israel from Saddam Hussein and his marauding army.

Yes and I think that:

1. Israel could have handled Saddam
2. BUT the Saudis/Qataris would not have been able to do so

We should have left the peninsular Arabs to their fate.