are you a "conspiracy theorist"?
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
- Status
In a culture of fear, we should expect the rise of new mechanisms of social control to deflect distrust, anxiety, and threat. Relying on the analysis of popular and academic texts, we examine one such mechanism, the label conspiracy theory, and explore how it works in public discourse to “go meta” by sidestepping the examination of evidence. Our findings suggest that authors use the conspiracy theorist label as (1) a routinized strategy of exclusion; (2) a reframing mechanism that deflects questions or concerns about power, corruption, and motive; and (3) an attack upon the personhood and competence of the questioner. This label becomes dangerous machinery at the transpersonal levels of media and academic discourse, symbolically stripping the claimant of the status of reasonable interlocutor—often to avoid the need to account for one's own action or speech. We argue that this and similar mechanisms simultaneously control the flow of information and symbolically demobilize certain voices and issues in public discourse.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/si.2007.30.2.127/abstract
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
July 13, 2013
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Press TV
Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:3AM GMT
By Dr. Kevin Barrett
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...heorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/kevin-barrett/government-cover-ups-are-falling-apart/
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy...opaganda-initiatives-of-all-time-2453052.html
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*
School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
...recognize this from somewhere?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/si.2007.30.2.127/abstract
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
July 13, 2013
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Press TV
Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:3AM GMT
By Dr. Kevin Barrett
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists do not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...heorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/kevin-barrett/government-cover-ups-are-falling-apart/
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy...opaganda-initiatives-of-all-time-2453052.html
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*
School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.
...recognize this from somewhere?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
January 2nd, 2014 · No Comments
*http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
New York
Post December 15, 2013*
*Opinion*
Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
*By Paul Sperry*
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no
state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’
investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign
support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.
Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing
middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines
where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is
about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are
“absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the
attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the
nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed
Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire
2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before
and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is
based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a
presumed ally.
The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found
“incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just
wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence
officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially
and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly
implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in
the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the
hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents
while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In
fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:
*LOS ANGELES:* Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly
arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid
al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the
advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left
the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left
the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was
deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)
*SAN DIEGO:* Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set
up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers
after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as
private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become
notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby
suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the
United States just before the attacks.)
*WASHINGTON:* Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks
totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers.
Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly
ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.
Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much
so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.
The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes,
Riyadh recalled Bandar.
“Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an
investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington
told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”
*FALLS CHURCH, VA.:* In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up
together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a
Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was
recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped
the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a
handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the
Pentagon.
Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi
Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel
itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the *official imam
on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.
Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet
about a year after 9/11.
As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US
documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before
being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal
warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous
day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
*HERNDON, VA.:* On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official
Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles
Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen
had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with
them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a
seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the
separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)
*SARASOTA, FLA.:* 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited
a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd.
FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for
the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by
the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury
home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were
left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched.
Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint
Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a
single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”
Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they
were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy,
which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.
Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the
FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as
Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts
directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met
with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman
Balcony while discussing the attacks.
Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads
the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a
“coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives
urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the
resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.
Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the
classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US
history.
Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign
by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them
access to the material.
But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White
House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The
information is still relevant *today. Pursuing leads further, getting to
the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.
As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum
to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism
substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more *lethal
attacks within the United States.”
Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi
relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating
simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen
years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.
Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember
that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.
http://www.911-conspiracy-theories.net/2014/01/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
January 2nd, 2014 · No Comments
*http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
New York
Post December 15, 2013*
*Opinion*
Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
*By Paul Sperry*
After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no
state sponsors.
But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’
investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign
support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.
Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing
middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines
where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is
about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are
“absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the
attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the
nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed
Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire
2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before
and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is
based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a
presumed ally.
The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found
“incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just
wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence
officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially
and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly
implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in
the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.
The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the
hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents
while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In
fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:
*LOS ANGELES:* Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly
arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid
al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the
advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left
the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left
the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was
deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)
*SAN DIEGO:* Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set
up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers
after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as
private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become
notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby
suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the
United States just before the attacks.)
*WASHINGTON:* Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks
totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers.
Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly
ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.
Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much
so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.
The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes,
Riyadh recalled Bandar.
“Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an
investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington
told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”
*FALLS CHURCH, VA.:* In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up
together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a
Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was
recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped
the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a
handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the
Pentagon.
Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi
Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel
itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the *official imam
on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.
Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet
about a year after 9/11.
As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US
documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before
being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal
warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous
day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
*HERNDON, VA.:* On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official
Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles
Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen
had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with
them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a
seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the
separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)
*SARASOTA, FLA.:* 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited
a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd.
FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for
the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by
the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury
home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were
left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched.
Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint
Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a
single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”
Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they
were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy,
which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.
Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the
FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as
Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts
directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met
with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman
Balcony while discussing the attacks.
Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads
the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a
“coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives
urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the
resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.
Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the
classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US
history.
Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign
by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them
access to the material.
But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White
House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The
information is still relevant *today. Pursuing leads further, getting to
the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.
As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum
to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism
substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more *lethal
attacks within the United States.”
Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi
relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating
simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen
years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.
Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember
that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.
http://www.911-conspiracy-theories.net/2014/01/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
[YOUTUBEIF]yuC_4mGTs98#t[/YOUTUBEIF]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98#t=293
(Transcript and sources)
[YOUTUBEIF]yuC_4mGTs98#t[/YOUTUBEIF]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98#t=293
(Transcript and sources)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xcbi5SH27c
[youtubeif]5xcbi5SH27c[/youtubeif]
see part 2 after #1...it won't link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXfjd1ffpQ8
[youtubeif]5xcbi5SH27c[/youtubeif]
see part 2 after #1...it won't link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXfjd1ffpQ8
ROFLMAO
now that is some funny shit.
i had forgotten all about the magic passport that survived the exploding plane and the disintegration of the towers with a few burn marks. i wonder how many other passports they found?
You are deluding yourself? How should a building fall?
Over sideways? Or should it follow scientific principals, and
come down in line with the pull of gravity?
Or is gravity a conspiracy also?
Do you realize that the WTC towers had a big bank of
steel reinforced concrete elevator shafts running down the middle?
And that the open floor plan was truss supported between the
outer walls and the elevator shaft bank.
The trusses softened to the point of failure, and each floor dropped on the floor below.
How would that look in a video? Exactly as it happened.
The floors aren't dropping they're turning to dust from an unknown force and it's not gravity.
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? EX-FUCKING-CUSE ME? YOU DON'T THINK 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Remember those fires burning for weeks AFTER the towers fell? Remember how the fire fighters - COULDN'T put it out?
Remember remember the 11th of September, the thermite, treason and plot, I see no reason why it should ever be forgot!
Really silly of you to come here and argue about the controlled demolition as well - you don't get chunks of concrete across the street from steel melting at the top of a building and then the rest of it just happens to collapse under it...
The worst part of it all... believing that a man - in a cave - who was sick and dying - was able to attack the most advanced country and military on the planet? And the fact that SOME HOW we could get VIDEOS from this guy in the cave - but we couldn't find him...
The Thermite alone found in the metal is pure evidence of this being a very very deep black ops type situation.
here eat this for dinner please. 11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11
This is a very rude view of the sacrifice of our brothers and sisters....
Attachments
-
1656404_661302777245395_1886335352_n.jpg -
1551774_514629561983822_610757405_n.jpg -
882689_659105877495453_5362383_o.jpg -
1509223_581616955256438_1876671420_n.jpg -
1476315_288295381295504_1137525140_n.jpg -
tax money.jpg -
575537_586267508059837_1029362643_n.jpg -
1461113_583527048391602_348935291_n.jpg -
1374229_685416828137753_1709964012_n.jpg -
1461853_601481696555552_1449982644_n.jpg
Well first of all, the whole bit about him being in a cave didn't happen until well after 9/11. He didn't allegedly escape to a cave until after we had already gone into Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and after the allied forces overran Taliban and al-Qaeda positions in December of 2011 during what is now known as The Battle of Tora Bora.
Second the whole notion of thinking we are the most advanced country and military on the planet and therefore it is ridiculous to think a bunch of crazy towel headed terrorists could attack us, is exactly what made it possible for them to attack. The Bush administration had intercepted messages from al-Qaeda indicating they were looking into using commercial planes as weapons, well before 9/11 and dismissed it as not being likely to succeed. That our security was already good enough to prevent it.
Third after the raid where Osama Bin Laden was killed intelligence was revealed that suggested he was never hidden in a cave, ever. That the whole hiding in a cave thing was false information that we bought into. You can't find someone when you're looking in the wrong place.
Lastly the attacks weren't planned and executed in a few days weeks or months, the plans for the attacks first began in 1996. Nor was Bin Laden the only one involved in the planning. He was just the leadership and the financial backer. The actual terrorists who carried out the attack were in the US some as early as the spring of 2000.
The suggestion that this couldn't have happened because Osama was a sick and dying man in a cave shows a total lack of understanding of known facts corroborated by many sources both in and outside of the US and makes it really difficult to take anything you have to say on the matter seriously.
...and your ignorant post above reveals your true character.
do not bring such asinine, idiotic, psychopathic comments into an otherwise sane discussion.
I'm glad you think it's funny. It says a whole lot about your character. I guess it helps though when you have mods who also feel such behavior is acceptable.
Whatever dude
You weren't expressing your opinion of the subject when you said that, you were expressing your opinion of my opinion on the subject. But you knew that so for you to play dumb is quite disingenuous and if it were true, that you can't even remember what you said in reference to what then you really have no business being a mod. Let alone a "Supadupamod" 
Conspiracy theorists = a sever case of Dunning-kreuger
.
.
- Status
