Senate Passes Bill Exposing Saudi Arabia to 9/11 Legal Claims
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Saudi Arabia is in a unique position here: they're dependent on the US for defense, the royal family has a lot of Salafi and al-Qaida sympathizers (including people whose donations to really sketchy Islamic charities went to al-Qaida; I've heard that the director of one such charity bought bin Laden his satellite phone). So, we can sue them and make them comply with our terms; if they choose to exercise state immunity to exempt themselves from 9/11 lawsuits, we can compel them to change their minds, by force of arms if necessary.
(By the way, Saudi Arabia is why mainstream opinion is horrified at Trump's idea of letting the Japanese have nuclear weapons. Japan can be trusted with nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons, but Saudi Arabia can't; and if we let the Japanese get the bomb, the Saudis will expect us to let them have it, too. At that point, what argument can we make? If we just came out and told them that they aren't grown-ups yet, they'd probably throw a tantrum.)
https://www.justsecurity.org/31156/senate-killed-jasta-passe...
IIRC the attacks were forcing some planes to run into two skyscrapers. What financing was necessary for it other than the plane tickets?
Several of the 9/11 Hijackers enrolled in flight schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_a...
And were otherwise supported to operate inside the US for many months.
>> The 9/11 Commission stated in their final report that the "9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack"
Still a non-trivial amount of financial support.
I stand corrected. Although there's no evidence as to who did the funding. I couldn't ever get my head around there islamic terrorist organisations and their different countries, even tho we in Istanbul and in Turkey had a lot of problems caused by them.
Edit: Lol at German auto correct. I meant:
Pilot training and preparation
An 8 pack of box cutters is $8.95. Going to school to learn to fly is within the reach of individuals - and only a few of them needed to learn how to fly. MS Flight Simulator is said to be good enough to learn quite a bit, too.
>planning and organization The best way to get past security is just to try it out several times. Send 2 teams for every mission, hope not both are stopped. After all, when you get stopped all they're going to do is take your knife. In the worst case, they might call the cops and you're burned.
People are seriously making this out to be a big deal. The only serious barrier is finding enough people willing to commit to the same goal and being somewhat disciplined and ready to die.
Fake ID to enter the country is probably the only real thing that might require some money or connections. Then again, I don't know what passport inspection c.2001 was like. Fake ID to fly on a domestic flight is trivial.
http://www.amazon.com/Box-Cutters-Utility-Knives-Breakaway/d...
MS Flight Simulator is fantastic to learn to fly. You still need left seat time in a real aircraft but it's great for fundamentals and navigation.
Can one not get student loans?
Given that P(funding|royal family) is very high, I'm not surprised to learn that this was also partially funded by them.
(I am absolutely not an expert in any of this. this is secondhand)
A decade and a half later, e.g. 15 fucking years after a terrorist attack we would allow people to sue a nation state because they may have played a role. Well guys, better suit up for the inbound lawsuits you would be fielding from the entire world if this precedent was set, and if it wasn't a bizarre farcical attempt at mastubatory populism* by Chuck Schumer. Except it is just that. It will never happen, and it is rediculous. 9/11 was fucking absurd, and we still don't know what the fuck happened. I mean, I don't want to go 100% jetfuel can't melt steel beams, but tower 7 just didn't suffer any structural damage, at all. So, does it make sense for some families to sue 15 years later, a country, of which some people may have contributed to this? Nah.
It took fucking 6-7 years [and I want to be super fucking clear that I believe this and it is not sarcasm] to compile a several hundred page manual on what the fuck happened to tower 7. Tower 7, as a reresher, was the tower that spontaneously dropped to the floor and did the worm even though it didn't get hit by that plane that crashed in pennsylvania. So, if you can't figure out why tall buildings are falling down after 3/4 of a decade, how the fuck are you going to let people sue a nationstate for the actions of individuals and not only prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but then apply some sort of metric to this to quantify it financially.
Shockingly, Chuck Schumer is up for reelection in 2016. Also, as an aside (and this was true when I did the math a couple months ago) more people died from the auto-erotic asphyxiation than were either killed or rendered severely handicapped from the Zika virus.
WTF is going on.
* Sean Penn said a phrase like this and I fucking love it.
edit: While the downvotes make sense, I challenge someone to disprove the following:
* This is strictly political posturing by Chuck Schumer and will never pass & was never inteneded to.
* The concept of holding a country responsible for something like this, if applied to America, would certainly outweigh any positive it would have for the families of 9/11 victims.
* Tower 7 was fucking pulled. I know it. The core of engineers know it. And the fundamental laws of physics demand it.
It’s weird that people keep calling out Schumer, considering there were 24 Senators who cosponsored the bill (12 Democrats and 12 Republicans), with Cornyn (R, TX) the sponsor, and it passed the full Senate (on a voice vote): https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/204...
Oh, I see. You're one of those people.
If you're going to go all 9/11 conspiracy theorist on us and make some wild claims about the core of engineers, maybe you should cite your rants.
edit: Also, that was hyperbole you referenced however there is a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who dispute the findings. As well as other outspoken individuals.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
There was a giant ragged hole 20 stories high!
The 500 page report of which I have skimmed(as much as a sane human can) and done some keyword mining on appears to not explain what happened. I contend there are inaccuracies in it, and find it odd that it took 8 years to produce it. Regardless, the building suffered structural damage to a corner. However, the entire building collapses into itself perfectly within the footprint. Statements were made that the building was "pulled" as it was unsafe. They were retracted. I don't care about citing sources, this is public knowledge.
So I think it was pulled. However, I would strongly contend & double down on that 500 page book being an utter piece of shit that does not come close to explaining to a rationally inquisitive person how that tower collapsed.
edit:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein"
edit 2: Architects & Mechanical Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a group of (as one would expect) Architects & Engineers. Tony Szamboti is probably the most prominently outspoken of the group. Some of the findings indicative of the group are summarized here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3WdpzaA4o
How was it pulled? How did they set up a controlled demolition of a burning building? Why would they not tell emergency services they were going to do that?
Would emergency services not have noticed demo experts with piles and piles of explosives entering and exiting the building?
Seriously, an "inquisitive mind" would ask these sort of questions. Go down to one of the on duty fire houses and ask your questions there...
Could you answer my other questions, hope to setup a controlled demo so quickly without anyone noticing the amount of people and explosives required... ?
We are just trolling each other at this point right?
I am not saying that. The silverstein quote isn't saying that. No one is saying that. There are many statements that have been retracted, this quote was not retracted but ascribed a different meaning. However to your point: the quote seems to indicate that Silverstein suggested the fire department install controlled demolition.
It can be assumed that even though he made several billion, his allusion to safety probably mean that he also thought that it would logically make sense for the fire department to leave the building after installing the explosives.
> hope to setup a controlled demo so quickly without anyone noticing the amount of people and explosives required... ?
There is an answer, not neccessarily what I believed happened, but certainly plausible:
All of the people who fled the fucking terrorist attack weren't there. A small team swept the building and installed the charges. The remainder of the fire department was focused on rescue attempts in 1 and 2. After the charges were set and the building was garunteed empty (or reasonable confidence) the order was given to drop it.
Why? Well, there was a massive fucking rescue effort underway so having a 750ft 47 story building randomly fall into the rescue effort (due to weakened asymetrical damage on the struts facing towers 1 + 2) they decided to use charges to control the footprint, limiting blowback and impact on ongoing off site efforts.
Idk how long you think it takes to set up charges but the building collapsed at 5:21pm and the attack occurred at 9ish. in fact, almost exactly 8 hours later. So, I am not saying this is exactly what happened, I only contend there are severe issues with the official story, but I do believe a highly trained team of demolition experts could set up and demolish a building with ~6 hours prep time.
I also have difficulty interpreting anything from myself or the quote even remotely intimating that this should be done with people inside. As to alerting their own personell, again there may have been an announcement, I don't fucking know as I don't have closed feed gov't radio recordings from 1.5 decades ago.
edit: Would emergency services not have noticed demo experts with piles and piles of explosives entering and exiting the building?
I mean, again, the entire air was full of dust and smoke and anyone not fleeing was looking in the rubble for people. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see other people with gear heading into a building in the distance (if this were in deed the case) and not wonder what that gear consisted of. Largely, because you are standing on the mass grave of >1000 people trying to survive long enough to save a couple more peole before you pass out from exhaustion.
If the destruction of the main towers was deliberately orchestrated, it couldn't possibly have been by Larry Silverstein acting alone. No landlord can literally get away with murder; if he caused the attacks, either he's an absolute criminal mastermind or he'd be dead by now.
If there was more going on than just al-Qaida, the US almost has to have known about the attacks in advance. If we did know, why did we let the attacks go through -- and if we were ruthless enough to let them happen, why weren't we ruthless enough to implicate Iraq?
From what I've heard, GWB saw Saddam as a family enemy, and started asking if Iraq was involved with the WTC attacks indecently quickly after they'd occurred. If he was willing to sit idly by as his citizens were killed (or even authorize the killings himself), surely he wouldn't scruple to frame an old enemy in the process. It would kill two birds with one stone: misdirect the blame in a very plausible manner, and give Saddam what was coming to him anyways (at least from GWB's perspective).
(Come to think of it, why not implicate the government of Saudi Arabia in a really clear, undeniable fashion? It would be easy and convincing -- I mean, they're already halfway to fully culpable in the official narrative of the attacks -- and it would offer a large, cheap payoff. On September 12th, "discover" that the Saudi royal family had signed off on the attacks. On September 13th, demand that the Saudis hand over 51% of Saudi Aramco by September 14th, or we'll bomb Riyadh and seize the oil fields on September 15th. It's not like the Saudi armed forces could stand up to the US...)
Ugh. I think we need browser plugins to filter these people out.
This is interesting, exploring the inconsistencies in the background of the alleged hijackers: http://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Fl...