US Judge Allows 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia To Proceed

Via Middle East Eye,

A US judge in New York on Wednesday rejected Saudi Arabia's request to dismiss lawsuits accusing it of helping in the 9/11 attacks.

The cases are based on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta), a 2016 law that provides an exemption to the legal principle of sovereign immunity, allowing families of the victims to take foreign governments to court.

The families point to the fact that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi citizens, and claim that Saudi officials and institutions "aided and abetted" the attackers in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, according to court documents.

US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said the plaintiffs' allegations "narrowly articulate a reasonable basis" for him to assert jurisdiction under Jasta.

Still, Daniels dismissed claims against two Saudi banks and a Saudi construction company for allegedly providing material support to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to carry out the attacks, saying he lacked jurisdiction.

The Saudi government has long denied involvement in the attacks in which hijacked planes crashed into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon outside Washington, DC and a Pennsylvania field. Almost 3,000 people died. 

Riyadh and its Gulf allies had strongly opposed Jasta, which was initially vetoed by then-President Barack Obama. The US Senate overturned the veto by overwhelmingly adopting the legislation.

Critics of the law say it is politically motivated and an infringement on the sovereignty of foreign nations.

Wednesday's ruling comes during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's visit to the US. President Donald Trump heaped praise on the Saudi royal during a meeting at the White House last week. 

Jim Kreindler, a lawyer for about 850 victims' families in the case against the Saudi government, said his clients are watching bin Salman's visit to Washington carefully.

He added that they are "aware of the many US-Saudi issues at play," including the possible listing of Saudi state oil giant Aramco on the New York Stock Exchange, a potential nuclear deal and further arms sales.

"It remains to be seen whether he is going to take a step in accepting Saudi accountability for 9/11," Kreindler told MEE earlier this month.

Kreindler told Reuters on Wednesday he is "delighted" that the judge dismissed Saudi Arabia's motion.

"We have been pressing to proceed with the case and conduct discovery from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that the full story can come to light, and expose the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks," he added.


RAT005 CTacitus Thu, 03/29/2018 - 23:23 Permalink

How will they all keep straight faces in the court room?

Explosive residue in the ash, pristine passports, the wrong jet engine on the ground, Israelis with detonators, Israelis filming it as it happened from the other side of town, an atmospheric fire cannot bring down a steel building, building 7, manipulated video showing a plane nose going through the building, molten steel, the gold robbery, the people told not to be in the building that day, symmetrical free fall, the bbc reporter announcing building 7 collapse prior to it happening, firemen reporting explosions, the lobby being blown out before the collapse, pilots say the flight path was structurally impossible for passenger planes, the dimwit Saudis that didn't complete flight school for a Cessna, the impossible cell phone calls, Pull it + the insurance settlement, Air defense either missing or called off, no CC video of Pentagon impact, no plane debris at the non-tower crash sites, what did I miss?

Edit: Black smoke is a sign of incomplete combustion which keeps flame temperatures lower.  When a house burns it's black smoke, a bon fire is usually white smoke, fireplaces and wood stoves are white smoke.  Jet fuel is not magic high powered fuel.  It is slightly modified kerosene which is the fuel for oil lamps.  You can buy it at Walmart and HomeDepot.  Get some rebar from HomeDepot and dous it with Kerosene and set it on fire.  Keep pouring the kerosene on for hours if you like.  Check what happens to your rebar....virtually nothing.  They made a big mistake not blowing the buildings right when the plane hit.  That would have been a lot harder to recognize as internal explosions.  Once the big flash and burn finished with an ongoing plume of black smoke, the argument that the plane fire brought down the building is impossible.  Like other steel buildings, it could have burned for days and never fallen down.

A little insight into combustion.  The liquid doesn't burn.  The heat of the burning vapor above the liquid vaporizes more liquid and that new vapor burns.  You can see the process in a candle.  Solid wax melts, liquid wax vaporizes, wax vapor burns.  Cassette player head cleaner is so volatile (has high vapor pressure) that you can pour it on your finger tips and set it on fire.  Nice video of five flaming fingers.  It vaporizes so quickly that the heat stays off your finger.  The buildings did not fall down because kerosene, carpet, desks, file cabinets and such were burning.

In reply to by CTacitus

fleur de lis waterwitch Thu, 03/29/2018 - 23:31 Permalink

So they are going after the stupid Saudi stooges but does anyone really believe they could pull off a stunt like the 911 bloodfest themselves? 


So when are they going after Mossad, the Bushes, the Clintons, psychos from the CIA and NSA who got bought off?

Paging Robert Mueller, please pick up line one.

Maybe not.

All the aforementioned screwballs are his friends.

Returning to previous mind control program.


In reply to by waterwitch

beemasters wildbad Fri, 03/30/2018 - 03:47 Permalink

Citizens all over the world could eventually file class-action lawsuits at least for emotional distress or other loss directly/indirectly due to 9/11. Oh, the time we have all "wasted" discussing the event, friends we have lost arguing if it was an inside job.... This could potentially be the "free fall" of nations/individuals/media behind 9/11.

In reply to by wildbad

Gen. Ripper RAT005 Thu, 03/29/2018 - 23:48 Permalink

The towers collapsed, including bldg 7, because they overheated. Any PE with experience in structural steel knows the yield stress can easily be overcome by high temperatures. Look at a concrete tunnel the next time you drive thru, and notice that even these are fireproofed to prevent spalling from fires. I worked in both the Customs House and WTC 7, both were very hollow and relied on fireproofed girders to keep from collapsing under high temps. 

In reply to by RAT005

RAT005 Gen. Ripper Fri, 03/30/2018 - 00:00 Permalink

An atmospheric fire has too much nitrogen and excess air to reach the temperature necessary for the steel to fail.  Not to mention the refractory put on the steel to further protect it from high temperature.  A steel building absolutely cannot fail due to an atmospheric fire.  No steel building has ever failed due to an atmospheric fire and no steel building ever will.  The flame temperature of the fire can be calculated by a good 3rd semester engineering student.  It is far less than 1200F, around 800F max.  My steel Blaze King wood stove only has fire brick on the bottom.  The top half of the stove is exposed to the fire.  My fire often goes 30 days non stop at temperatures to heat 1,800 sq. ft. and it's 10 years old.  No steel failure and it's less than 1/4" thick. And that is somewhat controlled combustion meaning hotter than an atmospheric fire (like a bon fire.)

In reply to by Gen. Ripper

Gen. Ripper RAT005 Fri, 03/30/2018 - 02:07 Permalink

I don't know what atmospheric temperatures refers to, but I do know that the stress yield for structural steel under load is logarithmically higher than your stove, and it has nothing to do with the melting temperatures you can Google. Anyway, I'll never convince anyone on this site that believes the moon landings were also faked.


Anyhow, can we at least agree that Israelis are blood sucking leeches which should be left to perish in the sand?

In reply to by RAT005

RAT005 IvannaHumpalot Fri, 03/30/2018 - 11:19 Permalink

Gen. Ripper, your failed attempt at using vocabulary used by degreed engineers to describe the event illustrates you're just repeating what you think you heard somewhere else.  Maybe you believe it or maybe you're trolling.  About half the kids that try for an engineering degree don't finish with marketable ability so not even being qualified to apply suggests you're not going to have much original thought on the science of combustion and steel properties.  Buzzwords you can familiarize yourself with are: stress strain curve, yield point, adiabatic flame temperature, combustion excess air, mean temperatures, integral heat capacities, heat of formation, heat of reaction, refractory, heat transfer coefficient, convective heat transfer, conductive heat transfer.  Those are some topics from 3rd-5th semester.

In reply to by IvannaHumpalot

thatthingcanfly RAT005 Fri, 03/30/2018 - 12:44 Permalink

RAT, your successful attempt at using vocabulary used by degreed engineers to describe the event illustrates you're just repeating what you think you heard somewhere else.

At no point, as best as I can tell, have you attached any of your "knowledge" to reality. If you believe that planes piloted by Muslim terrorists DIDN"T knock down the World Trade Centers and punch a hole in the Pentagon (killing several friends of mine in the Navy Wing), but that it was some inside-job involving a controlled demolition, then you're a complete idiot - irrespective of your pedigree.

In reply to by RAT005

RAT005 thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 16:48 Permalink

No plane hit the pentagon.  Kerosene and office content fire did not bring down the towers.  Building 7 demolition was an insult to everyone's intelligence.  Plus the long list of other facts in conflict with the MSM narrative.  Did you know Boeing forbids its employees from discussing 9/11 from the perspective of airplane limitations?  Call Boeing up and ask to speak to someone that can explain how the planes could have done what they are said to have done.....crickets.  I flew across the Pacific seated next to a Boeing engineer.  I let him tell me how accomplished he was at aeronautical engineering then told him my decades of engineering experience in heat transfer and fluid mechanics, especially focused in metals and minerals with and without oxidation.  And then explained how it was impossible for the fires to bring down the buildings.  What is the water cooler discussion at Boeing trying to account for what the planes were supposed to have done?  Should have seen him squirm.  No more comments the entire rest of the flight.  He said Boeing forbids the engineers from discussing 9/11.

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

detached.amusement Gen. Ripper Fri, 03/30/2018 - 08:29 Permalink

fuck off, go look at the dust kicked up from the rover, or how high what's his name was able to jump, and that tells you right there that footage was not filmed on the moon.

that's not to say we didnt go there, but you cant replicate 1/6th earth's gravity on the earth and you cant get sand on earth to behave like its moon dust in a significantly less dense atmosphere.

disclaimer, one's got to be a fkn idiot to believe in flat earth.

In reply to by Gen. Ripper

thatthingcanfly Gen. Ripper Fri, 03/30/2018 - 09:43 Permalink

Gen. Ripper,

I'm usually the one on the thread trying to talk sense into these idiot 9/11 "Truthers" and Apollo Moon Landing deniers. Glad to see there's someone else in the forum whose judgment hasn't been completely compromised by Alex Jones nuttery.

Notice how they employ the "gallop" logical fallacy when defending their controlled demolition theory? It's never just one reason for why it's "clear" that the whole thing was an inside job, it's like 20 reasons. Apparently, their high school debate coach didn't do a good job of disabusing them of logical fallacies. The idiot on this very thread - who calls himself a RAT - who's asking, "Did I miss any?" is completely hopeless.

In reply to by Gen. Ripper

Vatican_cameo thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 09:54 Permalink


You're a Certifiable Genius.  Building 7 was bullet-proof and build to withstand explosions.  It was constructed for the Secret Service and was the most structurally sound building in NYC.  This is why it was the storage facility for the back-up financial records of the Pentagon.  Structural steel melts north of 2200 degrees F.  Even if you saturated that building with jet fuel, you will see less than 1600 degrees F on a good day, yet a few burning desks bring it crashing to it's knees.  They only thing more pitiful than a Troll is an Ignorant Troll.  Better luck next time.

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

thatthingcanfly Vatican_cameo Fri, 03/30/2018 - 10:01 Permalink

I may not be a "Certifiable Genius," but I do have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Here's something that my professors were actually able to beat into my dull head:

You don't have to heat steel to its eutectic point to weaken it significantly.

Go look up "eutectic" and come back and tell me what you learned. Since you're way smarter than I am, it shouldn't take long.

In reply to by Vatican_cameo

CTacitus thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 10:43 Permalink

I'm usually the one on the thread trying to talk sense into these idiot 9/11 "Truthers"

Here is you golden opportunity to talk 'SENSE' as you put it ....

Since you claim that you have a degree in Mechanical Engineering please explain how these steel beams got sliced off:…


Of course you can't. Now who's the idiot?

[EDIT]: Is that the best you can do is a 'down vote'? Now go back to you SENSE of REALITY ... and return you degree because it is worthless!!

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

RAT005 thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 11:31 Permalink

Top 5 engineering college in the country, PE on first attempt, specialist in heat transfer and fluid mechanics, 20+ years in metals and metal oxides including reactor designs both refractory lined and non lined.  100% absolutely no way a steel building will ever fail during an atmospheric fire.  That is why oxy torches are used by iron workers.  Did you do any welding and cutting while profs. were working on your dull head?  There is also conservation of momentum problem for the top few floors to level a building.  It's nothing more than an oversized sledge hammer that cannot take down the building, not to mention symmetrically.  Oh wait, 3 times symmetrically.

The long list is how pathetic the MSM narrative is.  I'm not debating anything.  None of those things would have happened if a plane flew into the World Trade Center and started a fire.  Which ever points people can relate to, that is their proof planes didn't take down those buildings.

You were better off being considered a troll rather that outing yourself as a failed mechanical engineer.

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

thatthingcanfly RAT005 Fri, 03/30/2018 - 12:01 Permalink

You are simply wrong. Deluded, and flat out wrong.

"The long list is how pathetic the MSM narrative is."

There it is again - the gallop logic fallacy. If the narrative were false, you would only need to cite ONE reason or piece of hard evidence - not a "long list" of individually weak arguments presented in an attempt to overwhelm the other party with debunking every little thing you gallop to in a seemingly endless stream of bullshit. 


In reply to by RAT005

Vatican_cameo thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 11:56 Permalink


I hope you saved your receipt for all this Higher Education you received.  Too bad you can't apply all this Book Theory to Reality.  Big difference.  Exhaust systems on vehicles see a much higher percentage of heat vs. melting point, yet they manage to survive for many years.  They should break off after the first few days, but yet they don't.  Here's some advise for your professors.. "Those who can, do.  Those who can't Teach".

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

RAT005 thatthingcanfly Fri, 03/30/2018 - 16:57 Permalink

I explained to you very clearly that the long list are things that couldn't happen with the popular lame story.  It doesn't matter how long it is, or which items you relate to well.  Those are things proving the MSM narrative is false.  If you like just one item, stick with that.  Some people might feel one item is too little to make a decision.  Pick as many as you like.  Thermite alone discredits the whole story.  Saying flames failed the steel discredits the whole story.  Symmetrical implosion into the foot print is impossible by chance.  If some floor really did collapse, it can't take done multitudes of other floors.  The floors cannot fall at free fall speed.  On and on.....what ever people relate to, there is a long list to pick from.  The length of the list is not the proof.

In reply to by thatthingcanfly

thatthingcanfly David2923 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 07:39 Permalink

What do I see?

Another nutty 911 "Truther" falling prey to the logical fallacy "affirming the antecedent."

If A = C, and B = C, then does A = B? No, not necessarily!

If photos of wreckage from the twin towers show a steel support with breaks exhibiting a certain-looking jagged edge, and these other pictures show similar-looking jagged edges caused by shaped charges, then do we say that the twin towers were definitely dropped by shaped charges? No!


In reply to by David2923

FBaggins PhilofOz Fri, 03/30/2018 - 00:50 Permalink

Yes, yes, two planes and three buildings. Now that the US Ziocons are in complete control of Saudi Arabia after hanging half of sheiks upside down for a few weeks, they are ready to try them for the heinous crime and mass deception which the Zioncons DID. Anyone who denies this is either an absolute despicable liar or completely ignorant.  

Go ahead and make the hole deeper with your kangaroo courts and fake trial to cover your filthy asses. 

Those running the USA are just so so FOS. 

In reply to by PhilofOz

Dangerclose Gen. Ripper Fri, 03/30/2018 - 09:32 Permalink

A building freefall is physically impossible UNLESS key supports were quickly blown away as only demolition charges can do. You have watched waaayyyy too much Wiley coyote and Road Runner cartoons and your understanding of physics is obviously distorted.  Ask yourself this question...Why didn't the top floors slowly come down AS the heated metal pillars were weakening and deforming? I can understand how a few floors would be lost as they slowly collapse but to say it was a chain reaction started spontaneously is simply impossible. There are videos showing a series of explosions several floors down in advance of the actual collapse just as professionals would do to bring a building down. Therefore placing thermite and explosives prior to the jets crashing certainly proves it involved more than 19 hijackers with box cutters and mace. If you can't believe that there are certain people in our government or using the resources of our government, who would unremorsefully kill thousands to further their goals.......then I don't know how you have manged to stay alive this long.

In reply to by Gen. Ripper

thatthingcanfly Dangerclose Fri, 03/30/2018 - 09:56 Permalink

Everything you wrote above is false. And I'm not going to allow myself to get drawn into rebutting every element of your gallop; but I will address one of the more pernicious falsehoods parroted by Alex Jones nut-jobs as if it's absolutely true: the "evidence" of explosions from a controlled demolition.

I work at a sand mine, where we do controlled demolitions every day. Prepping a wall face for a demolition takes the better part of a day. And that's just a mostly-flat 50 foot by 40 foot wall face. Prepping a fucking skyscraper for a demo is exponentially more difficult/time consuming. The suggestion that WTC 1, 2, or 7, were prepped for demolition during the weeks/months leading up to 9/11, which would have involved hard-hat wearing industrial crews working around the clock, drilling holes in support columns, hauling/pumping in thousands of pounds of explosives, and wiring the miles of det cord required for such a job, and NOT BEING OBSERVED BY ANYONE WORKING IN THE BUILDING is absolutely preposterous. The absence of any det cord residue at Ground Zero after the collapses is another observation the "inside-jobbers" carelessly ignore.

Pull your head out of your ass. There was no controlled demo. Not a false flag. Aircraft piloted by Muslim hijackers really did take the buildings down. It was a clever plot, which worked only due to the unique design of WTC1 & 2, ie. no central support columns. The event is just the latest example of Muslims doing what Muslims do to the ones they call, "infidels."

In reply to by Dangerclose