H/t reader kevin a.
Not to forget the DANCING ISRAELIS:
* * *
H/t reader kevin a.
Not to forget the DANCING ISRAELIS:
* * *
As reported on Saturday, a September 11 widow was the first American to take advantage of the recently passed Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA), aka the “Sept.11” bill courtesy of Congress which for the first time in Obama’s tenure overrode his veto, by suing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden leading to the death of her husband, Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, who was killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2009, when Stephanie was two months pregnant at the time with the couple’s daughter. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. She sued for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Continue reading »
President Barack Obama has vetoed the legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The bill passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate and was met with widespread public support.Known as “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA, the bill creates an exemption to the doctrine of sovereign immunity established by a 1976 law, thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries for terrorism that kills Americans on US soil. Continue reading »
H/t reader squodgy:
“The next President of the United States of America….”
Secret Service/Handlers had to drag a lifeless Hillary Clinton to the Scooby Van earlier today in NYC. SICK HILLARY!!! I live in New York, it isn’t that hot today folks to be “overheating”.
* * *
H/t reader squodgy:
“It’s no wonder the elite rule us all with an iron fist is it?
The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming, and the people and their legal and political representatives should be demanding Action against the perpetrators with their accomplices to Treason against the State and the people.
But nothing happens.
Somewhere the site clearance workers know full well they found them and handed them over. Why hasn’t there been a class action? Is everyone gutless?
Like I said, it’s no wonder, is it?”
* * *
NEW YORK — As the 15th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks approaches, a government program designed to help survivors receive health care is seeing a dramatic increase in cancer patients.
Based on figures released on June 30 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Trade Center Health Program has enrolled over 5,441 people diagnosed with cancers linked to 9/11. Continue reading »
The following videos have been removed, but you certainly will still find some videos about this on YouTube:
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of studies at the US Army War College says that the military brass now know that Israel “and those traitors within our nation” committed the 911 attack.
……”I have had long conversations over the last two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and the headquarters, Marine Corps and I’ve made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.” Period.
……”There are some really, really unhappy people up there…….astonishment was the first thing…..they didn’t know, they truly didn’t know……and the next statement is rage…real rage”
……” The Zionists are playing this as an all-or-nothing exercise. If they lose this one, they’re done…..”
This video is still up:
When browsing through the mainstream media abyss, there is no shortage of stories about people hunting down Pokémon on their office desks, in hospital rooms, and even in bathrooms. One teenage girl reportedly found a dead body while looking for Pokémon.
Pokémon is everywhere.
Not only is it everywhere, but its players are increasingly finding themselves in the beds of hospitals. It’s oblivious users fall from cliffs, walk directly into major highways at the peak of rush hour, absentmindedly stop their cars in the middle of the road — or wrap vehicles around trees — and become the ‘unwitting’ victims of armed robberies and stabbings. Continue reading »
Shortly after the release of the infamous 28-pages earlier today, the White House issued a statement dismissing allegations of Saudi involvement in the attacks of 9/11. I believe such assurances are intended to prevent people from reading it in the first place, because if you actually read them, your mouth will be wide open the entire time in disbelief.
There are only two conclusions any thinking person can come to after reading the 28-pages.
1. Elements within the Saudi government ran the operations behind the 9/11 attack.
2. The U.S. government covered it up.
But don’t take my word for it. You should read it yourself.
Just to give you a little taste, here’s what was found on the first page alone (click on the images for the entire document).
In the evening, while he was held captive at a secret CIA black site in Thailand, the high-value detainee Zayn al-Ibidin Muhammed Husayn said his interrogators would torture him by confining him to a large, six-foot-tall black wooden box in “extremely uncomfortably positions.” Other times, they would force him to spend hours in a small “dog box.”
The detainee, better known by his surname, Abu Zubaydah, said he was deprived of “adequate air” and food in the boxes while an “extreme noise machine nearby” tormented him.
* * *
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a Jersey City, N.J. housewife named Maria was making coffee in her kitchen when she received a phone call from a neighbor who excitedly told her to look out the window. When Maria looked she was shocked to see a plume of smoke rising from the World Trade Center about a mile away across the Hudson River. Quickly Maria grabbed some binoculars and stepped out onto the balcony of her high-rise apartment, known as the Doric Towers, which afforded an excellent view of lower Manhattan. Maria did not yet know that a commercial airliner had plowed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, but it was obvious that an ugly tragedy was in progress.
As she watched, she noticed three men in the parking lot below who were behaving strangely. They were sitting or kneeling on the roof of a white panel truck and, like her, were watching the stricken World Trade Center. Oddly, however, the three men were celebrating. They were smiling and laughing, giving high-fives, taking photos, and one looked to be filming the World Trade Center as it burned. Their inappropriate behavior made Maria suspicious and, a few minutes later, when the men drove off in the van, she copied down their license plate number. When her husband returned home from jury duty, she discussed the matter with him, then, called the police and reported what she had seen. Continue reading »
Preface: We’ve previously shown that 9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job, because:
- 9/11 was thoroughly and exhaustively investigated by the 9/11 Commission, Congress and U.S. scientific agencies
- No one could have foreseen 9/11
- Government officials didn’t have time to stop the 9/11 attacks, once they realized America was under attack
- It couldn’t have been a conspiracy, because no one could keep such a big conspiracy secret … someone would have talked
- Our government wouldn’t do anything like that, and
- Our free press would have reported on anything that outrageous
But many people still believe that the World Trade Center buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were brought down with controlled demolition. This essay shows they can’t possibly be right.
* * *
Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime. American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for the person who destroyed the evidence.
So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?
Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence
For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.
(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)
Destruction of Videotapes
The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.
On Tuesday, the US Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The bill allows victims of terror attacks on U.S. soil or surviving family members to bring lawsuits against nation-states for activities supporting terrorism. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) explained that the bill is very near and dear to his heart, and would “allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice.”
Everyone understands that the purpose of the bill, at least in the immediate term, is to enable victims of 9/11 and remaining family members to sue Saudi Arabia. A 60-minutes special on the now infamous “28 pages” renewed interest in the role the Saudi’s may or may not have played in the attacks. The segment implied that there are pages of an investigation into the 9/11 attacks that are being hidden from from the public in order to cover up evidence that links the Saudi government to the attacks.
Pushing back on the criticisms that the bill was only passed to specifically target Saudi Arabia (which it was of course), Schumer stated “Look, if the Saudis did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court.”
President Obama has already said he intends to veto any such bill, and as the bill heads over to the House, it may encounter resistance as well. Speaker Paul Ryan has voiced skepticism about the legislation, saying “I think we need to look at it. I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and we’re not catching people in this that shouldn’t be caught up in it.”
Saudi Arabia has come out strongly against such legislation, and have threatened to sell $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets if such a bill is ever passed. While we’re not certain if Saudi Arabia has $750 billion to sell, we are certain that as we warned previously, if such legislation does pass, it will open up the US to reciprocal lawsuits which will undoubtedly open many people’s eyes to the role the US has played in what others may perceive as terrorism around the world. Something tells us that the bill miraculously won’t end up getting enough support to pass the House, and if it does, it certainly will not get enough support to override an Obama Veto once these types of messages have been clearly conveyed to lawmakers.
While that may disappoint many hoping get a glimpse of the 28-pages, as TheAntiMedia’s Claire Bernish notes, they may have found a preview of the redcated pages…
On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed a document published by the National Archives that appears to offer a glimpse into potentially damning information contained in the so-called ‘missing’ 28 pages concerning the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Those 28 pages are “an entire section within the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks … Conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, its 838-page report was published in December 2002.”
Over the past several weeks, discussion has reignited debate over the need to release the redacted section for several reasons — the most striking being a bill to allow the families of 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia over its potential involvement in the attacks. In what cannot be considered a coincidence, also on Tuesday, the Senate voted to approve that exact legislation — called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) — in direct defiance of vows from Pres. Obama that he will summarily veto the bill should it land on his desk.
“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,” stated Sen. Charles Schumer on the bill’s passage.
Separate legislation, which coincides with JASTA — S.B. 1471, Transparency for the Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act of 2015 — would require the president to declassify those currently-redacted pages. This would almost certainly be imperative for JASTA to have the teeth necessary for affected families to pursue justice.
Tuesday’s disclosure from the National Archives appears to show why those families might, indeed, have a justifiable reason to hold the Saudis at least partly responsible for damages — despite its contents only hinting at information potentially contained in the 28 pages.
Former member of the 9/11 Commission, John Lehman, came forward in the past week calling for a new and thorough investigation into Saudi involvement in the attacks. In measured and precise language, Lehman noted that “we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization” — but also stressed “our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”
Perhaps, as Lehman suggested, the institution of the Saudi government did not play a role; however, as found in the document in the Times, at least a partial connection already stands.
A shady cast of characters are briefly outlined in the document under the heading, “A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11th attacks” — and simply in context it appears a number of notable associations may have been made.
Omar Al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national, encouraged two of the hijackers to move to the San Diego area where he was located. As the document describes:
“Al-Bayoumi has extensive ties to the Saudi Government and many in the local Muslim community in San Diego believed that he was a Saudi intelligence officer. The FBI believes it is possible that he was an agent of the Saudi government and that he may have been reporting on the local community to Saudi Government officials.”
Osama Bassnan “received considerable funding from Prince Bandar and Princess Haifa, supposedly for his wife’s medical treatments. According to FBI documents, Bassnan is a former employee of the Saudi Government’s Educational Mission in Washington, D.C.”
Though some officials privy to the redacted section have claimed any connection to kingdom officials is tenuous, at best, one solid link already stands. Fahad al-Thumairy, a former diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, associated himself with al-Bayoumi in San Diego before the revocation of his visa and his subsequent return to Saudi Arabia in May 2003.
In fact, the document lists a pilot for the Saudi royal family who ferried Osama bin Laden back and forth between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia during his “exile.” A number of others are listed with less than questionable ties to either the Saudi government, the royal family, or both.
But perhaps most telling are the questions the document appears to be proposing for the investigation — or, more specifically, what seems to be implied in those questions.
“1. How aggressively has the U.S. Government investigated possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks?
“2. To what extent have the U.S. Government’s efforts to investigate possible ties between the Saudi Government and/or Royal Family and the September 11th attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?”
On their own, such questions seem basic, obvious, and even mundane as so essential to the investigation to be needless to state — but taken with the details of this outline and the context of what their answers may constitute in those redacted 28 pages, the repercussions become apparent. If, for instance, the U.S. decided not to thoroughly pursue avenues of investigation due to economic interests in Saudi affairs, that would show fealty to another country over the best interests of the victims of those attacks.
Perhaps that murky obstruction is best seen in the document’s discussion of an FBI informant located in San Diego. Buried among other questions, the document asks: “Why did the FBI, Department of Justice, and White House refuse to allow the Joint Inquiry to interview or depose the informant?”
With the firestorm swirling once again around the redacted 28 pages, this basic outline of a document offers a serious glimpse into what might prove to be a fundamental shift in the narrative of 9/11 the U.S. government has spoonfed for over a decade.
As U.S.-Saudi relations have recently deteriorated to an arguable new low, perhaps it remains just a matter of time before we all know the truth.
* * *
After a month-long scare campaign waged by Saudi Arabia, and in no small part the Obama administration, which went so far as to threaten it would dump its US Treasurys (which the NYT previously had quantified as $750 billion however which the Treasury just yesterday disclosed for the first time in 41 years as only $117 billion, suggesting the Saudis would likely also have to sell US stocks and various other US-denominated assets), if the US were to pass a bill that would hold it legally liable for the Sept 11 attacks, it will be up to Obama to veto the bill because moments ago the Senate unanimously passed said bill, bringing Congress closer to a showdown with the White House. Continue reading »
Six Saudi officials are believed to have actively supported al-Qaida members in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks on America, former 9/11 Commission member and investigator John Lehman has disclosed.
Lehman, who was a member of the 9/11 Commission between 2003 and 2004, said there is documented evidence against employees of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and specifically against individuals who worked for the Saudi Embassy in the U.S., Saudi charities and the Saudi government-funded King Fahd Mosque in California. Continue reading »