no wait you said the fires were so hot they caused the pool of molt steel and yet there's the pic and video of edna cintron. so if the fires were not that hot(which edna proves) where did the pools of molten steel come from
wtc7 no plane hit, no kerosene yet it fell that day and the 9/11 commission does not mention it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
WTC7 and Controlled Demolition, Side-By-Side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCi6XQEIL4M
Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.
That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, The Swift Boat Veterans and the “Ground Zero Mosque” got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”
Fact #1
The core of the Bush Administration was predominantly made up of members of an organization called “The Project For The New American Century.” This group produced a document entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the “process of transformation” they wanted our military to undertake would take an excessively long time, unless there was a “catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” That document was written in September 2000. This document even cited that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A lot of the same people were part of a group that wrote a report entitled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that advocated an aggressive Israeli policy in the Middle East.
Fact #2
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq. This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked the President about it. He denied it of course, and used 9/11 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.
Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill said that Saddam was “topic A” ten days after the inauguration at the very first National Security Council meeting, and eight months before 9/11. According to O’Neill, “it was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
On November 24th, 2009, the “Chilcot Inquiry” revealed that “Tony Blair’s government knew that prominent members of the Bush administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein years before the invasion (before 9/11)” [...] “We were aware of these drumbeats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that part of the spectrum,” added Sir William Patey, then head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office.”
In a 2007 interview with former Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke, he states that between March 2001 and May 2001, members of the Bush Administration discussed creating a “casus belli” for war with Iraq.
According to Merriam-Webster, a “casus belli” is “an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict.”
In December 2011, I asked Richard Clarke on Facebook whether or not he thought people in the Bush Administration were actually capable of such an act, and he replied that “some of them were.”
Indeed. On 2/2/2006, it was reported that Bush and Blair discussed using an “American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war.” Bush said, “the US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” On 9/23/2007, it was reported that Dick Cheney “had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz – and perhaps other sites – in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out.” On 8/1/2008, ThinkProgress reported that “Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.” [...] “Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected.”
Fact #3
Dick Cheney was the CEO for a company called Halliburton. During his tenure there, he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said, “while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”
On 10/11/2005, it was reported that the shares that Dick Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton, rose 3281% in one year. In late 2010, Halliburton was kind enough to pay $250Million “to get the government of the African country (Nigeria) to drop bribery charges against the former corporate CEO and other Halliburton employees and operatives.”
Fact #4
In early 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of The National Energy Policy Development Group, or “Energy Task Force” for short.
He prepared for this during the transition between the Clinton and Bush administrations.
The task force met with what appears to be every oil executive in existence, even though they denied it before Congress.
It was eventually discovered that one of the topics of discussion during these task force meetings was Iraq’s oil fields. Five months before 9/11.
The Vice President’s office fought long and hard to make sure the information from those meetings never saw the light of day. They even took the fight to the Supreme Court. Many were suspicious of the hunting trip that Antonin Scalia, and Dick Cheney went on prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case. Scalia was proud of the fact that he didn’t recuse himself from the hearings. Ultimately, they sent the fight to an appeals court, and it was decided that Cheney’s Task Force documents may remain secret.
Fact #5
In the months leading up to 9/11, there was an unprecedented amount of warnings that “Al-Qaeda” was about to conduct an attack. So many that CIA Director George Tenet was said to be running around with his “hair on fire,” and so many that a lot were not taken seriously “because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings.”
One of those warnings came in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” that was initially hidden by the White House.
Another came on July 10th, 2001 that spoke of an “imminent threat,” that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report, and then lied about after it became public knowledge. Condi even had the audacity to ask “does anybody really believe that somebody would have walked into my office and said, oh, by the way, there’s a chance of a major attack against the United States and I would have said, well, I’m really not interested in that information?”
Cheney said that his “Democratic friends in Congress… need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.”
Fact #6
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 9/11.
On 3/7/2001, the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is “two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer-range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate al-Qaeda.”
On 3/15/2001, Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that the U.S. is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.”
On 7/23/2002, Agence France Presse reports that General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command said that “the details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.”
On 6/26/2001, it is reported that “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.”
In late Summer 2001, the Guardian will report that “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.” In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”
The President had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001. They “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf.”
On 7/21/2001, three former American officials, Tom Simons, Karl Inderfurth, and Lee Coldren met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is allegedly told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” On 8/9/2009, it is reported that Niaz Naik “was found dead in mysterious circumstances at his residence.”
Fact #7
On the day of 9/11, a number of key personnel were “scattered” across the country, and the world. With few exceptions, including Dick Cheney.
The President of the United States, at a time when America was “under attack” from kamikaze hijackers in commercial airliners, in a highly publicized location, 5 miles away from an international airport, in a classroom full of children, was not whisked away by the Secret Service.
His conduct on the morning of 9/11 changed on the first anniversary. What actually happened was “when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush about the second plane crash into the WTC, Bush continued to sit in a Florida elementary school classroom and hear a story about a pet goat for at least seven more minutes.” [...] “But one year later, Card claims that after he told Bush about the second WTC crash, “it was only a matter of seconds” before Bush “excused himself very politely to the teacher and to the students, and he left the Florida classroom.”
Fact #8
On the morning of 9/11, there were several military exercises taking place, some of which allegedly mirrored the events taking place that day.
A lot of different people didn’t know whether or not the hijackings were “real-world or exercise.”
According to Richard Clarke, on the morning of 9/11 at around 9:28am, he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference “I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?” Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies it’s, “NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK (emphasis mine). WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR, A NORAD EXERCISE (emphasis mine), but Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert.” The 9/11 Report only mentioned one of these exercises, Vigilant Guardian, and in a footnote in the back of the book.
On 2/25/2005, then Rep. Cynthia McKinney asked (realplayer required) Donald Rumsfeld about the exercises that were taking place on 9/11, but did not get an answer on that day.
On 3/10/2005, Rep. McKinney asked Donald Rumsfeld, and Gen. Richard Myers about the exercises again. The first question asked by Rep. McKinney was, “whether or not the activities of the 4 wargames going on on Sept. 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.” Gen. Myers responded with, “the answer to the question is, no, did not impair our response. In fact, Gen. Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission… I believe…I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond.” Then Rep. McKinney asked, “who was in charge of managing those wargames?,” and was cut off by Rep. Duncan Hunter. Gen. Myers never gave a name, but he did say, “North American Aerospace Defense Command was responsible.” She was promised an answer in writing and as far as I know, never received it.
Fact #9
From the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), Dick Cheney allegedly monitored Flight 77 from 50 miles outside of Washington D.C. This, according to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” The 9/11 Report states that Cheney didn’t arrive in the PEOC until 9:58. No video conferences from within the PEOC have been made available. No personnel records for who was in the PEOC have been made available. The “young man” Norman Mineta mentioned has never been publicly named.
On 7/28/2010, James Dorman finally identified the “young man” as being Douglas Cochrane. According to 9/11 Commission notes, he was interviewed on April 16th, 2004, though we can not see what he said. He is not mentioned in the 9/11 Report.
On 3/12/2011, a document was posted to scribd.com that seems to support Norman Mineta’s testimony.
Fact #10
On the day of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War.
DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying. “Best info fast… judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time – not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” [...] “Go massive… Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [...] “Hard to get a good case.”
Like Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice started planning for the Iraq War within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Sir Christopher Meyer, “a former British ambassador to the United States says then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice talked to him about Iraq and Saddam Hussein hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.”
Also, “George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 9/11 attacks, according to Blair’s foreign policy adviser of the time.”
Fact #11
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 9/11/2001, Bush says, “this is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity.” He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002.
Karl Rove said, “sometimes history sends you things and 9/11 came our way.”
Fact #12
In the days and months following the attacks, several people within the administration and elsewhere tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.
General Wesley Clark said, “there were many people, inside and outside the government, who tried to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11.”
According to George Tenet, shortly after 9/11, Richard Perle said, “Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday, they bear responsibility.”
Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, “[I]ntelligence and law enforcement officials investigating the case would do well to at least consider another possibility: that the attacks-whether perpetrated by bin Laden and his associates or by others-were sponsored, supported, and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein,” he writes. “As yet, there is no evidence of explicit state sponsorship of the September 11 attacks. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Dick Cheney claimed the bogus Atta-Iraqi spy meeting had been, “pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
Since that time, they have done so again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and even Hillary did it.
On 5/14/2009, it was reported that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was tortured “in an effort to produce intelligence tying Iraq to al Qaeda.” According to Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff, “what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 – well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion – its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.”
Fact #13
The heads of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Rep. Porter Goss, and Sen. Bob Graham, along with Sen. John Kyl, met with an alleged financier of the attacks on the day of 9/11. George Tenet met with the same individual in May 2001 in Pakistan. Others met with him in Washington D.C. between September 4th-11th, including Marc Grossman, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Joe Biden, and “unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon.”
Fact #14
The Joint Congressional Inquiry, which both Bush and Cheney tried to “limit the scope” of, released a report with 28 redacted pages. Apparently, those 28 pages talk about “possible Saudi Arabian financial links.”
In 2004, Sen. Bob Graham says that the Bush White House is covering up Saudi Arabia’s possible connection to the two hijackers that lived in San Diego. He said the information about them, “present[s] a compelling case that there was Saudi assistance.” He also says that the Bush Administration directed the FBI to “to restrain and obfuscate” any investigations into the connection.
The landlord of the two hijackers was Abdussatar Shaikh, an FBI asset handled by agent Steven Butler. The FBI originally tried to prevent Butler from testifying before the Congressional Inquiry, but when he finally did, he said that he may have been able to uncover the 9/11 plot if the CIA shared their information on the two hijackers. He said, “it would have made a huge difference.” [...] “We would have immediately opened… investigations. We would have given them the full court press. We would… have done everything-physical surveillance, technical surveillance, and other assets.”
On 1/8/2008, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that “a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia and key members of its royal family was put to a crucial test today as lawyers for victims of the 9/11 attacks urged a federal appeals court to reinstate the government of Saudi Arabia as a defendant.” The Cozen O’Connor law firm in Philadelphia “was the first to file suit against the government of Saudi Arabia in 2003, charging that the desert kingdom bears responsibility for the attacks because it permitted Islamic charities under its control to bankroll Osama bin Laden and his global terror movement.” The lawsuit “suffered a setback in 2005 when New York federal district court judge Richard Conway Casey ruled that the federal foreign sovereign immunity act barred lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family.”
On 11/13/2008, it was reported that “thousands of victims of the 9/11 attacks appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday, asking it to overturn a lower court decision barring lawsuits against Saudi Arabia for supporting acts of terrorism.”
On 1/6/2009, it is reported that “lawyers for Saudi Arabia have asserted in court papers that the Supreme Court should reject arguments that the desert kingdom be held accountable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because, over a period of many years, it financed al-Qaeda. In papers filed with the Supreme Court, lawyers for the kingdom and several high-ranking Saudi royals say that U.S. law provides blanket immunity to Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the 9/11 attacks.”
On 2/24/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court yesterday asked the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward.”
On 5/29/2009, the New York Times reports that “the Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.” 9/11 Family Member, and “Jersey Girl” Kristen Breitweiser said, “I find this reprehensible. One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”
On 5/30/2009, the victims family members released two press releases. The first one states, “today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration’s decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens — 9/11 family members — to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.” The second one states, “on the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The second press release lists “allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.”
On 6/9/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that this case “is likely to reach a critical juncture this month when the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear arguments on Saudi Arabia’s legal exposure.” It goes on to say that “the hurdle for the plaintiffs, both insurers and individual victims, isn’t simply facts and law, but also the political dimensions. Saudi Arabia is one of the United States’ most important allies in the Middle East. It has been a forward staging area for the U.S. military, deemed an important counterweight to Iran’s regional ambitions, seen as a huge source of energy, and a very big purchaser of American goods and services.” Tom Burnett who lost his son on Flight 93 asks, “why would the Obama administration give less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, and security and more to the pleadings of a foreign government? It strikes a blow against the public’s right to know who financed and supported” the 9/11 attacks.” “Kagan’s May 29 brief, representing the opinion of the Obama administration, was significant because the Supreme Court in most cases follows the solicitor general’s lead.”
On 6/11/2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “lawyers representing victims of the 9/11 attacks charge that the government sought to “appease” Saudi Arabia by urging the Supreme Court not to hear arguments that the kingdom could be sued for its alleged role in funding the attackers.” A “brief filed by the Center City law firm of Cozen O’Connor and other lawyers representing victims, employed unusually scathing and at times emotional language, suggesting at one point that the government’s brief was timed to coincide with President Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia last week.” “A spokeswoman for U.S. Solictor General Elena Kagan said the May 29 filing of the government’s brief had been determined by the schedule of the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide whether to hear the case by the end of the month.”
On 6/23/2009, the Washington Times reports that a “series of closed-door meetings between the relatives’ groups and Justice Department officials, arranged as an update on Mr. Obama’s plan to close the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, turned instead into a sharp clash over the Saudi legal action.” Apparently, “the family members demanded to be be heard on the White House’s stance during a series of closed-door meetings at the State Department and the Justice Department last week.”
On 6/24/2009, the New York Times reported that “classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families.” It goes on to say that Obama’s “Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.” 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser “said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims’ families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages (28 redacted pages of the JICI) public. But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.”
On 6/29/2009, it is reported that “the Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.” The “justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.” The Supreme Court “turned down the appeal without comment.”
Elena Kagan was later confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
On 11/28/2010, the New York Times reports on State Dept. Cables released by Wikileaks. Their report states that “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda,” and this was further elaborated on by a report released by the Guardian on 12/5/2010.
On 6/30/2011, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan wrote an article for Vanity Fair called, “The Kingdom And The Towers” that spoke of the Saudi Royals connection to the 9/11 attacks. Not long after, the co-chair of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Bob Graham, wrote an article that said, “…the (Saudi) agent secured and paid for an apartment. He arranged flight lessons. He introduced them to a tight circle of Muslims, primarily Saudis, who offered additional support.” [...] “The (Saudi) agent then tapped another source of funds: a welfare account maintained for the benefit of Saudis in need by the wife of the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.” The Saudi Ambassador at the time was long-time Bush family friend, Prince Bandar.
On 7/16/2011, 9/11 Family Member Kristen Breitweiser wrote an article addressing the News Corp phone hacking scandal. In that article, she said, “…as someone who has tried to pique the interest of both Congress and the Justice Department to investigate various issues over the course of the past 10 years to no avail, I wonder: what exactly does it take to get Congress and the Department of Justice interested in an issue. Because with regard to Murdoch-gate and 9/11 victims, ironically, it would seem the bar is pretty low.” [...] “…if all it takes are allegations made in the media to spark a fire in the “seat” of Congress, then I’d like to re-direct their attention along with Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama to this month’s Vanity Fair article written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, “The Kingdom and the Towers.”
On 9/8/2011, it was reported that “just two weeks before the 9/11 hijackers slammed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, members of a Saudi family abruptly vacated their luxury home near Sarasota, leaving a brand new car in the driveway, a refrigerator full of food, fruit on the counter – and an open safe in a master bedroom. In the weeks to follow, law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights – including leader Mohamed Atta – in discoveries never before revealed to the public.” Bob Graham said, “at the beginning of the investigation, each of the intelligence agencies, including the FBI, was asked to provide all information that agency possessed in relation to 9/11.” [...] “The fact that the FBI did not tell the Inquiry about the Florida discoveries, Graham says, is similar to the agency’s failure to provide information linking members of the 9/11 terrorist team to other Saudis in California until congressional investigators discovered it themselves.” As a result of these revelations, Bob Graham “called on the U.S. government to reopen its investigation following a news report linking the hijackers to a Saudi Arabian couple who lived in Florida. Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham said he has no reason to doubt the news report, which said the Saudi Arabian couple abruptly abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota two weeks before the attacks, leaving behind a full refrigerator, clothes, furnishings and a new car in the driveway.” The FBI has responded by saying the individuals that left the country were not a threat, and that “all documentation “pertaining to the 9/11 investigation” was given to the congressional Joint Inquiry that examined the 9/11 tragedy.”
On 9/9/2011, it was reported that “nearly 10 years to the day after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a London-based insurance syndicate Thursday filed a new lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia in U.S. District Court in Johnstown, Pa., alleging that the Saudis helped finance and provided logistical support to Islamist terror groups.” [...] “The suit, filed on behalf of Lloyd’s Syndicate 3500 by the Center City-based law firm Cozen O’Connor, opens a new front in the long-running litigation over the 9/11 hijackings. An earlier lawsuit, also filed by Cozen O’Connor, has met with mixed success: A federal appeals court in Manhattan found that the Saudi government could not be sued under U.S. law, but a number of charitable agencies affiliated with the Saudi government and financial institutions remain as defendants in that case.” [...] “The suit, filed on behalf of an insurance syndicate that paid out $215 million in claims to various 9/11 victims on behalf of airline-security companies, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, and others, names as defendants not only the Saudi government, but also the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the Saudi Joint Committee Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya; National Commercial Bank, which has been linked by American officials to al-Qaeda money-laundering, and others.”
On 9/15/2011, ABC News reported that “the latest legal pursuit is that of an insurance syndicate of British insurer Lloyd’s, which says the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its banks and various charities should be financially responsible for the $215 million it paid in insurance settlements to 9/11 victims’ families. William Doyle’s family is one of the families determined to find those who funded the attacks on 9/11. Doyle’s son, Joseph, was killed in the north tower of the World Trade Center. William Doyle told ABC News there are “concrete facts” showing the majority of the hijackers’ funding originated from Saudi Arabia. He said the government helped “shield” some of that evidence when the joint congressional committee investigating the attacks published a report in December 2002 and redacted about 28 pages. Doyle and others believe names of Saudi financiers and companies have been removed. “How could they hide under diplomatic immunity?” Doyle said of those he believes have been protected. “People don’t get missiles to strike down helicopters by themselves. Someone is funding them. If someone is funding them, let it be known and cut out their funding.”
On 9/19/2011, it is reported that “without explanation, a group of insurers today dropped its lawsuit against Saudi Arabia and several Saudi organizations claiming they should cover the $215 million the group has paid out in claims related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Stephen Cozen, a Philadelphia lawyer representing Lloyd’s Syndicate 3500, filed a notice today that the group is voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit. Cozen, by email, refused to discuss the reasons for dropping the case.” Another report says, “Stephen A. Cozen’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint provides no indication of the reason for the move. By dismissing without prejudice, the motion seeks to close the case without precluding its renewal. Typically, when a case is settled, it is dismissed with prejudice.”
