Krieger: We Need To Admit The Government Story About 9/11 Is Bullshit

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Unless we come to terms with 9/11 and the obvious fact that the official government story is a ridiculous fairytale, it’ll be hard for our nation to move forward in an intelligent, courageous and ethical manner.

Many of the most destructive trends which have defined our post September 11, 2001 environment, such as a loss of civil liberties and endless barbaric wars of aggression abroad, have been directly related to our false understanding of that awful terrorist attack.

As I’ve always maintained, I have no idea what really went down on that day, I just know that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are not being honest.

Although it’s been a long time coming, we’re finally uncovering some kernels of truth about the attack and the role Saudi Arabia played in carrying them out. Much of this progress has been driven by family members of those who died, some of whom are suing the Saudis for their role in that despicable slaughter of civilians.

I’ve written about these lawsuits on several occasions, but here’s an updated summary from Common Dreams, published two days ago:

As our summer draws to a close and ushers in a cool and rainy September, there is a solemn chill in the air marking the approaching anniversary of the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center that took place September 11th, 2001 – nearly sixteen years ago. The memories are still fresh for the survivors and the family members of victims who are to this day living with their losses while continuing to fight for accountability through both the military court in Guantanamo, where individuals involved in the attacks have been tried or are still facing painstakingly slow trials. This upcoming sixteenth anniversary of 9/11 will be the first time since the attacks that the families now have another legal recourse for seeking accountability not only from individuals but from a nation involved in the attack: Saudi Arabia.

 

Introduced in the Senate on September 16th, 2015, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) removed a major roadblock to justice by opening the way for private US citizens to file suit against the Saudi government, which was previously protected by the blanket immunity given to foreign governments. There is much that we do not yet know about what went on behind closed doors with regard to the orchestration of the 9/11 attacks, but the declassification of the portion of the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry known as the 28 pages on July 15th, 2016, after 14 years of secrecy, offered the preliminary hope of some much-needed answers. Of the 19 total hijackers who carried out the attacks, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and evidence contained within the 28 pages pointed to financial connections between these individuals and members of the Saudi government.

 

Curiously, however, Saudi Arabia’s suspected culpability in the attacks has not been reflected in US response. From the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to President Trump’s attempted travel ban affecting a list of seven Muslim-majority countries—from which Saudi Arabia is notably absent, it would appear that our government’s enthusiasm for retaliation against “Islamic terror” has a blind spot in the shape of the US alliance with Saudi Arabia.

 

Getting at the truth of the extent to which the Saudi government sponsored and aided in the attacks is a vital step towards justice and closure for families that, until JASTA, had the power of foreign sovereign immunity standing in its way. Despite fierce oppositionfrom Saudi lobbyists and a presidential veto that argued that it would invite similar lawsuits against the United States government from victims of US war crimes, JASTA was successfully passed into law on September 28th, 2016. Only two days later, the first lawsuit under this new act went forward. DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, filed by the widow of US Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, set the precedent for many other lawsuits of its kind to follow.

 

While some JASTA lawsuits came from single individuals or families as in the case of DeSimone v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, others were filed in the form of consolidated complaints with hundreds of plaintiffs issuing shared demands. Ashton et al v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest class action lawsuits of this kind, sporting the names of over 800 family members and 1500 survivors. Filed March 20th, 2017, the lawsuit as of the time of this publication is contending with a motion filed by Saudi Arabia to dismiss it from the court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have until October 2nd to submit documents opposing the motion.

Evidence of at least some Saudi complicity in the attacks is pretty much undeniable at this point, and if you missed it the first time, I suggest you read my summary of what we learned in the infamous “28 Pages.” 

But now we have even more information. A lot more. For instance, take a look at some of what the New York Post reported over the weekend:

Fresh evidence submitted in a major 9/11 lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi Arabian government reveals its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, further reinforcing the claim that employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers and plotters.

 

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

 

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. In fact, the Saudi government may have been involved in underwriting the attacks from the earliest stages — including testing cockpit security.

 

“We’ve long asserted that there were longstanding and close relationships between al Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government,” said Sean Carter, the lead attorney for the 9/11 plaintiffs. “This is further evidence of that.”

 

Citing FBI documents, the complaint alleges that the Saudi students — Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi — were in fact members of “the Kingdom’s network of agents in the US,” and participated in the terrorist conspiracy.

 

They had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan at the same time some of the hijackers were there. And while living in Arizona, they had regular contacts with a Saudi hijacker pilot and a senior al Qaeda leader from Saudi now incarcerated at Gitmo. At least one tried to re-enter the US a month before the attacks as a possible muscle hijacker but was denied admission because he appeared on a terrorist watch list.

 

Qudhaeein and Shalawi both worked for and received money from the Saudi government, with Qudhaeein employed at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Shalawi was also “a longtime employee of the Saudi government.” The pair were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.

 

During a November 1999 America West flight to Washington, Qudhaeein and Shalawi are reported to have tried multiple times to gain access to the cockpit of the plane in an attempt to test flight-deck security in advance of the hijackings.

 

“After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious,” according to a summary of the FBI case files.

 

“When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane,” it added. “Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.”

 

The pilots were so spooked by the Saudi passengers and their aggressive behavior that they made an emergency landing in Ohio. On the ground there, police handcuffed them and took them into custody. Though the FBI later questioned them, it decided not to pursue prosecution.

 

But after the FBI discovered that a suspect in a counterterrorism investigation in Phoenix was driving Shalawi’s car, the bureau opened a counterterrorism case on Shalawi. Then, in November 2000, the FBI received reporting that Shalawi trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and had received explosives training to perform attacks on American targets. The bureau also suspected Qudhaeein was a Saudi intelligence agent, based on his frequent contact with Saudi officials.

 

More, investigators learned that the two Saudis traveled to Washington to attend a symposium hosted by the Saudi Embassy in collaboration with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by the Saudi ambassador. Before being shut down for terrorist ties, IIASA employed the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a lecturer. Awlaki ministered to some of the hijackers and helped them obtain housing and IDs.

 

The FBI also confirmed that Qudhaeein’s and Shalawi’s airline tickets for the pre-9/11 dry run were paid for by the Saudi Embassy.

 

“The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government,” said Kristen Breitweiser, one of the New York plaintiffs, whose husband perished at the World Trade Center.

 

Carter said in an interview that the allegations that the Saudi Embassy sponsored a pre-9/11 dry run — along with charges of other Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plot, from California to Florida — are based on “nearly 5,000 pages of evidence submitted of record and incorporated by reference into the complaint.”

 

They include “every FBI report that we have been able to obtain,” though hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents related to Saudi terror funding remain secret.

As I tweeted yesterday:

Finally, let me end this post by sharing a video put together by James Corbett, which has attained nearly 3 million views.

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Crazy Or Not's picture

I'm just going to warm up my typing fingers here give me 5...

BRB..

MagicHandPuppet's picture

Sadly, I know a few people who still buy the official story.

They also believe everything the see on the teevee news.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

The bullshit 9/11 lie is based upon a pile of lies under and on top of it. Each lies lends support to all the other lies. To uncover 9/11 requires uncovering the entire pile of steaming bullshit.

This is far too much for the average sleepwalker to tolerate.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

Did Bush personally install the explosives in the towers or was it contracted out?

If contracted out, were the installers all killed after? Not one of them has leaked and leaking about a president - especially a leak that will take down a republican presidency - is VERY profitable.

So many questions... I obviously haven't read up on it.

Dormouse's picture

Those explosives were installed during construction. Fuck David Rockefeller, burn in hell you piece of shit.

striving4simple's picture

I don't think the explosives were installed during construction.  Explosives have a shelf life and become unpredictable and unstable after that.

If you wish to see stacks of the supplies that were probably used in wiring the buildings for demolition do a google image search for "bb18 israeli art project"

I wonder if Google will black hole this post by Krieger like they did his "Big Lie" one from a few years.  Try as I might, at the time I could not get Google to return that article.

Actually, I still can't get evil Google to "find" this article - had to use Bing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mike-krieger-asks-whether-september-11-200...

 

Future Jim's picture
No One Beats Al Qaeda

The US has tried for years to beat Al Qaeda, but now, after Americans have given up much freedom to central government and borrowed trillions of dollars from central banks, there is more terrorism than ever before. Nevertheless, don’t blame the FBI or the CIA, or Bush or Obama. There is no shame in being beaten by the best.

Al Qaeda must be at least a generation ahead of the US – both strategically and technologically.

In fact, the only weakness of Al Qaeda is that they keep leaving their passports at the crime scene, but consider that their passports are indestructable. America simply doesn’t have the technology yet to make indestructable passports, so clearly, those Al Qaeda scientists in those caves in Afghanistan are at least a generation ahead of the US. Al Qaeda passports are so tough that they were found on the street after the towers collapsed – unscathed. Maybe this doesn’t sound as scary as it should … until one considers that none of the four black boxes were recovered from the towers.  So, America’s most indestructable technology (black boxes) were vaporized under conditions where Al Qaeda passports survived – unscathed. It’s not as if American black boxes are crap either (they have never been completely destroyed before); it’s that Al Qaeda technology is just that good.

What other possible explanation could there be? It’s almost as if …

See what I mean about strategic brilliance? Al Qaeda almost tricked me into considering whether 9/11 could be an inside job, and whether those Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves are not really a generation ahead of the US, but an inside job is clearly impossibe because the CIA is not allowed to operate inside the US.

The evidence for Al Qaeda superiority is overwhelming. Consider that Al Qaeda knocked down three towers with only two planes! No one else could have done that. Two planes hit two towers, and then a third tower (WTC7) collapsed a few hours later. The NIST explained a few years later that it was an ordinary office fire that resulted in what everyone says looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but how is it that only Al Qaeda knew that WTC 7 was the only building in the world that would collapse exactly like a controlled demolition as a result of an ordinary office fire? What’s more, they somehow tricked the owner, Larry Silverstein, and John Kerry too, into claiming years earlier that we brought WTC 7 down as a controlled demolition because it was badly damaged, but how did they trick America’s best into confessing to a conspiracy that never happened? Clearly, they even have some kind of mind control.

I could go on for pages and pages, but there is one hope – Israel. Israel may lag behind Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves, but their strategic brilliance may be as advaned as that of Al Qaeda, so America’s best bet is to give Israel all of our technology, and to borrow trillions more dollars and give them to Israel.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has already thought of this, and may have successfully neutralized Israel when it tricked several Mossad agents into setting up cameras ahead of time on 9/11 and dancing with joy when the towers collapsed. Even if Al Qaeda’s preemptive move has made it politically impossible to give everything to Israel, at least Israel is our strongest ally in the region and is thus far more important than before 9/11 …

JSBach1's picture

How about starting a class action lawsuit against at the US government as a primer for the duplicity interwoven in the so called "findings" and the absolute joke of a so called commission that authored its conclusion?

doctor10's picture

ain't happenin'...not until the American Republic come to terms with their very own Julius Ceasar....JFK...and Oswald was no Brutus.

911 is subordinate to the Dallas fairy tale

moneybots's picture

Dallas was no fairy tale.

 

It was Oswald, whether you want to believe it or not.

VWAndy's picture

 BS Oswald prolly never even fired a shot. Carlos Babcock the best sniper in the US military even said he could not make the shot Oswald is claimed to have made.  Its an almost impossible shot. Even harder for a right handed shooter. And the car practically stopped right in the perfect spot for the grassy knoll shot.

  Then we have all the other bullets impact marks like the one in the front window header of the car or the one on the curb.

jmack's picture

  I think you may be refering to Carlos Hathcock. 

 

 

Ah forget it, he is rolling.

VWAndy's picture

Yea I suck at remembering names. Hathcock was the guy.

CorneliuCodreanu's picture

One again (((Michael Krieger))) directs away from the 800 lb gorilla in the room. See the truth World Trade Center’s Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli ‘Art Student’ Project

Casey Jones's picture

Doctor10, Your argument that JFK was the crossing of the Rubicon is true, but 9/11 offers more immediate ways to bring forth irrefutable evidence that could make the guilty accountable. Or it least it should have. Somehow facts became irrelevant. Not somehow, actually, it was by design. Thanks Operation Mockingbird. One can only hope that these traitors can be derailed before their next big mischief. Remarkably the net still has easily searched 9/11 evidence if people can clear the cobwebs long enough. Start with ae911truth.org if you're new to this material.

Conscious Reviver's picture

Class Action lawsuit my ass. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein made sure none of the 9/11 famlies' lawsuits went to trial. (((They))) own the courts.

And Saudis were just junior partners and designated patsies. Hence the OK after all these years to go after them in a show to let off some steam.

JSBach1's picture

It was a figure of speech; not that possibility would ever materialize...

Point being is that there are myriad of unanswered questions, or follow-up points of interest, at least to those that are unsatisfied given the conclusions made henceforth...

caconhma's picture

The 9/11 facts are clear:

  • No any US government credible investigation ever was conducted. Why? What are they hiding?
  • The Laws of Physics tell us that 
    • It has been a controlled demolition. All three buildings fell down to their footprints with the velocity of the free-fall
    • No airplane has struck the Pentagon since all its components disappeared including jet engines which were built with materials capable of surviving extremely high temperatures
  • The entire 9/11 affair is very similar to the JFK assassination. Today, almost 55 years later, we pretty well know that US government has lied to us. We also know people who did it but we do not know people who have ordered the JFK assassination. It is also obvious that foreign government(s) as well as domestic & foreign secret services have participated in the JFK assassination. After all, it was a very complex operation.
  • It is absurd to assume that a cave-man Bin Laden was capable of designing and executing such complex operation. After all, it was CIA who created, trained, and managed Al Qaida going back to the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in early 1970s.
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I do not need to explain or prove who, what, when, where, why or how something was done in order to understand the official story is a crock of shit.

The burden of proof lay with those who promote an official story that is in severe conflict with observed and scientifically proven facts. The official story is a coverup, with more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese.

 

9/11

VWAndy's picture

 Exactly! That is the argument tptb cannot get around. Its on the one making the claims to prove up. Its not on me to prove anything either way. Im the one with doubts and im not alone.

BLOTTO's picture

The truth of 9/11 blows the lid off of everything 'they' have ever told us.
.
It questions our purpose and the meaning of this life.

Xredsx's picture

This event will make the earth stop spinning. The day the earth stood still. Even the great divide of humanity was engineered. They had to destroy many different ideologies to bring in their new centralised world order. The plan involved 3, not 2 but 3 world wars. Atheists was designed to swipe out both the atheist ideology and Christianity with one single blow  Confused how that one works? That is because you have lost your faith.

HominyTwin's picture

That is the best parade float ever!

MozartIII's picture

I don't bring it up, just part of the charade. Don't think I know anyone that believes any part of the BS.

JethroBodien's picture

Is that Bernie Madoff in the picture... it couldn't be.... my god it's him

Seeing Red's picture

"... observed and scientifically proven facts".  No offense, but I'm going with the metallurgists on this one (note each collapse began at the bottom of the damaged/weakened area).  Sorry guys -- have fun in the echo chamber.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

LOL

It's not "just" the three collapses caused by two planes that's bullshit. It's the ENTIRE 'official' conspiracy theory that reeks of excrement.

Seeing Red's picture

Laugh all you like.  I merely take issue with the ridiculously complex (and unnecessary) collapse "theories" of WTC 1 & 2.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

So you are speaking about the official conspiracy theory. Because that 'theory' never explained how the top of the towers destroy the bottom of the towers containing much heavier and sturdier beams. The 10,000 page NIST report stopped at 'collapse' initiation. They inferred the rest was self evident because they knew they could never explain it if they tried.

And what about WTC 7?

What a joke. The tooth fairy is more plausible than the official conspiracy theory.

Seeing Red's picture

I've addressed the WTC1 & 2 collapse previously (it's not worth repeating -- I'll just be told I'm a shil [again] for summarizng info readily found in engineering textbooks).

Basically, no one here has ANY idea about engineering of tall structures.  For example, what exactly do you mean by "sturdy"?  Are you talking about strength, stiffness, or toughness (which are completely different properties)?  Mechanical engineering is a like a foreign language on a site like this ....

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Nor will I waste my time. People believe what they want to believe.

Spend some time at this website ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) if you are interested in reading and hearing what real accredited architects, engineers and scientist have to say about what was, and was not, going on that day.

Or not. I can smell shit when it's smeared under my nose. My nose tells me the 9/11 'official' conspiracy theory is dog shit through and through.

Seeing Red's picture

I've seen the site, thanks.  IMHO, any actual mechanical or structural engineers who were involved with that are obviously incompetent (it's clear from the wonderment expressed at "free-fall" speed, "lateral ejection" and so forth -- which are totally expected for that type of failure).

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"which are totally expected for that type of failure"

And yet no structural rules, laws, regulations or code pertaining to actual steel construction and engineering was changed as a result of 'that type of failure'. I wonder why? If there was a defect in the engineering or construction, you would think someone would demand changes, if only the insurance companies.

Exactly what 'type' was that? A type never before or since experienced in the entire history of steel frame buildings?

And still you avoid WTC 7. Hmmmmm

Seeing Red's picture

I know little about WTC7 so I have a policy of not commenting on it (save others time).

I don't know if any laws changed (building codes are written in blood as they say), but they should.  Lessons were learned.  There was even a TV show on the lessons (including firefighter response).

Not that many VERY tall steel-framed buildings have failed due to massive non-explosive sabotage.  To semi-quote TMosley, the architecture was somewhat cheap-ass.

Re:  "type".  The mass of the building above the failure was signficant (lots of intertia once it started dropping).  The distance below the failure was also significant (allowed the top to build up a lot of speed).  I was pretty impressed with the instructions given to the two pilots -- they must have been coached by some sort of engineer.  There was a clear strategy (and now that I think of it -- I haven't heard that discussed anywhere [hmmm]).

If you're really interested in my postings on the subject -- why not just read them?

EDIT:  For any extremely tall building not built of mithril or spider-silk, I would expect free-fall speed of a heavy top section (regardless of whether it was impacting the lower building).  Has to do with compromises for high strength-to-weight ratio (i.e., lack of toughness).

VWAndy's picture

 totally expected for this type of failure. LOL.

  Based on what data?  Nice plea to authority chump.

Seeing Red's picture

Huh?  I'm just trying to be concise.  Read the "EDIT" on my post above.  Any questions?  Maybe consider reading my older posts on this where I DID (I repeat, DID) go into much more detail.  But it's hopeless -- no offense but ... you guys just aren't engineers -- you don't have the background (you might have actual personalities though).

"What data?" -- study up on the pros and cons of shaping things into I-beams or box girders.  Also, high-school physics (hint: potential energy due to height/mass/gravity).  There's your data.  In many basic ME (and physics) textbooks.

VWAndy's picture

 There is no data because its never happened before or since.

Seeing Red's picture

If you don't believe in physics or science in general (which is what engineering is based on) -- that is YOUR problem.  Not mine.

Gee, would it be OK to jump out of a radioactive hot-air balloon?  There's no data on that -- it's never happened before -- we can't say.  Maybe you'd just float down.

VWAndy's picture

 Actually I do believe in real science and physics. At 16 I came up with the very math VW used to go well past the 100mpg car hurdle.

  I make my living by being right or I dont get paid.

 

 PS The personal attacks tell me deep down you know the truth.

Seeing Red's picture

LOL -- sarcasm implies "personal attacks"!?!  This is getting good.  How's the weather in Langley?

{I will admit to getting slightly frustrated.  OMG I must "know the truth" -- LOL}

VWAndy's picture

 More sophistry? Snide innuendo?

  oh yea you know it. getting you to face it is another story

Seeing Red's picture

LOL LOL LOL

{Thank you -- I think you just made my day.  Hey ... we have an opening for an MDB ....}

VWAndy's picture

 You can run from the truth if you want to. Its your choice. But make no mistake about it. The truth will still be what it is.

 Man up and face the truth.

Seeing Red's picture

Wow.  Nice that you have the franchaise on "The Truth" (tm).  You a devout Christian by any chance?

VWAndy's picture

 More sophist tricks. Dragging religion into it for no valid reason other than to deflect or change the subject.  Weak stuff really.

risk.averse's picture

I am an engineer, Seeing Red, and I agree with you. So many "experts" on this site. What a joke they are.

So many Americans just wont accept that foreigners penetrated US security and flew jets into New York buildings. "had to be an inside job" is their mantra. Perhaps there was complicity with CIA elements but the posts that claim, for example, that explosives were planted in the buildings WHEN THEY WERE BUILT is beyond ludicrous.

BTW, it's a common joke amongst engineers that many architects know very little about the physics of structures and materials. Architects don't like all that "boring" stuff. They just hire engineers to take care of the "boring details". Not sure I would pay much attention to architects in this debate.

VWAndy's picture

 And just who would you believe? 

 

 Nice dismisive post.

Seeing Red's picture

How about forensic, structural and building safety engineers for a start?