[Closed] 9/11 documentary

'he is very assured, like he has read this a few times in advance, he doesn't miss a beat, almost sounds excited"
Its almost as if he is a minor media personality who is used to talking witnessed a major event and found himself in front of a camera.

Why would the conspiracy use a known media whore as a witness rather than a clean skin ?

@whathaveisaidnow

Do you want to understand the facts, or do you want there to be a conspiracy?

#poeslaw

Ground Zero isn’t a new term. It’s been in common useage since the 40’s.

(Do you even read what people post?)

who mentioned 'new'?

Does the fact your conspiracy video wrongly identifies him as an actor who was in los Angeles at the time and that truthfers continue to argue it is Humphreys and not Walsh in the video even though Walsh's friends recognise him concern you?

Sorry. You will need to explain then.

Why then does it matter, that he used the term “ground zero” (in the correct context) in the video ?

I’m not getting it.

The video even said “wow” as if it was some exclusive “smoking gun” they had unearthed.

@whathaveisaidnow

Do you want to understand the facts

please God just give me the facts, actual undisputed, 100 per cent facts and truths please

please God just give me the facts

Ok.

The video you posted is amateur hour garbage, and you should be embarrassed about posting it.

The man in a suit in the business end of new York who you find so exciting how do you read his mind ? How do you know why he is interested in listening to the interview , I would imagine the whole point of interviewing people for TV is that random people will be interested.

he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...

The guy in the suit has an earpiece and shows body language that suggests he is part of this scenario, not just a random suit...

...no wonder i ride alone...

sorry misinterpreted the random person as the interviewed guy... still its unusual...

i don't mind correcting my wrongs...

Ok.

The video you posted as amateur hour garbage, and you should be embarrassed about posting it.

you are real good at just ignoring my questions and just jumping on me....i've only been nice to you.

...have you got an issue?

amateur hour garbage

proof?

AQ terrorists seized airliners and flew them into major buildings in America causing a massive loss of life massive financial loss and a huge blow to American pride . It was part of a continuing campaign of terror against America inspired by Ossama Bin laden.
Some Americans try to restore a sense of self about this by saying Arabs could not pull that off it must be an American inside job. No " evidence " to support this conspiracy theory stands up to scrutiny. But still thanks to the wonders of the internet and the view everyone is entitled to an opinion the argument drags on.
Is that the simple facts ?

please God just give me the facts, actual undisputed, 100 per cent facts and truths please

Ok, look at the video you posted and apply some critical thinking to it.

Critique it from both sides of the debate, not just from what you want to see.

Ignore the text overlay.

he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...

He introduced the guy as a freelancer for Fox. He knew who he was before the interview. He was stood there waiting to be interviewed.
Just like most news interviews.

He’s a freelance journalist who knows hundreds of other media people.
He was an eyewitness to an incredible event.

Explain again why you find it incredible that he would end up in front of a camera being asked about what he saw ?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...

As you say, he wasn't random. What are the odds that a dude from Fox, finding a witness from Fox, who can speak coherently on TV without saying ****, would use them for that interview?

As you say, he wasn't random. What are the odds that a dude from Fox, finding a witness from Fox, who can speak coherently on TV without saying ****, would use them for that interview?

i agree that could be a sensible move... given the chaos...

i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers and the guys in black...

"he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy..."
Re read what I wrote why would a man in black suit be interested in a TV interview because they are designed to be interesting to random people.
What are the odds that a media whore with connections and a bona fide story to tell could find himself in front of a TV camera on the day a major event happened in his back yard ? Seriously I'd estimate about 100/100

Ok, look at the video you posted and apply some critical thinking to it.

Critique it from both sides of the debate, not just from what you want to see.

Ignore the text overlay.

i'm learning to do this.

i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers and the guys in black

He’s a professional reporter, and radio host, asked to do an interview about something he’d personally witnessed.
How uncertain would you expect a prepared professional to be ?

amateur hour garbage
proof?

It was produced by amateurs, and the text overlays claims are all garbage.

(Why it it incredible that he used the term “ground zero”?
He’s not an actor, he’s a reporter and radio host..... etc etc)

"i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers "
He saw what happened
"and the guys in black..."
Guys in Manhattan in black suits wow who'd have guessed.
They may be FBI or spooks !if so .. Do you not think the streets would be flooded by random people and every single available security man of every description who would be curious about everything , what with the massive event happening and all ?

okay...

he used ground zero.... he could have been familiar with the term and used it correctly...

okay...

he worked for fox, he possibly filmed it, saw it all (that could be a lie),
he was deemed a good guy to interview...get it...

i'm struggling with the guys in black and his very assured take on why they came down...

clear these bits up

To be fair, the dudes in black suits are fairly odd.

But this is the US so it’s at least believable

very assured

Media training.

If you've had it, you know how to speak to the media in a very assured manner. I know that I do.

Also, people in suits in a CBD? Who'dathunkit.

"i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers "
He saw what happened
"and the guys in black..."
Guys in Manhattan in black suits wow who'd have guessed.
They may be FBI or spooks !if so .. Do you not think the streets would be flooded by random people and every single available security man of every description who would be curious about everything , what with the massive event happening and all ?

he saw what happened from a distance of 5 blocks ... but he could not know how exactly the collapse happened.... impossible.

if this was a set up interview....it was set up precisely, with thought,..there is nothing random about this interview...IMHO.

In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?

Media training.

If you've had it, you know how to speak to the media in a very assured manner. I know that I do.

Certainly he was ripe for this interview, i agree.

i'm struggling with the guys in black and his very assured take on why they came down...

clear these bits up

The 1st one appears to be a curious bystander who is listening to the interview. How many times have you seen people approach reporters and interviewees on the street to see what is going on?

The 2nd one, is probably one of hundreds of FBI, police etc. who even if off duty would have been called in to work and cover the streets.

Why would he lie about filming it? Surely if he was in on it, then he would of been waiting for it happen?

Also, if this video is true, "they" have managed to keep another 4 individuals completely quiet about the whole conspiracy.

I'm sure you're trolling.

In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?

... i think without the second one saying....errr i can't tell you why i'm here (off top of my head)... the first one would pass fairly unnoticed...maybe he works for fox, lots of expensive broadcast equipment and reporter to protect?

nothing random about this interview.

The bloke he's interviewing is another news reporter. It isn't a random bloke from the street. He's been chosen precisely because he can talk in front of a camera in coherent sentences rather then the usual "oh gawd, did you see, I mean, oh gawd, what..., oh gawd" normal shite that a non trained idiot would come up with... It makes for better telly

if this was a set up interview....it was set up precisely, with thought,..there is nothing random about this interview...IMHO.

Ok, imagine the logistics to set this up. Consider how often it would have to be repeated, ask yourself why no one has talked.

How many other interviews have you looked at, or did you look for conspiracies and find this? What does that tell you?

Ask yourself if his answers deflect attention or attract it, if this was planned why give him that info if it sounds so suspicious?

Are you suggesting that such a carefully planned false flag operation failed at such a basic level?

Are you applying critical thinking?

And remember that Fox is an entertainment channel (ignore the Fox News bit) they want ratings and viewers not verisimilitude

Google him his apartment was used for filming the scene for days after . he didn't know exactly what happened he said structural failure how else do you say a structure fell down due to intense fire , he saw an intense fire! How odd is that to say a burning building that caught fire fell down , structurally failed due to fire . Interestingly the inquest into what happened agreed with this eye witness account . Most people think that when the inquest, technical evidence and eye witnesses agree then the official version is correct rather than the opposite.

Also, if this video is true, "they" have managed to keep another 4 individuals completely quiet about the whole conspiracy

i really don't buy,...the people would have come forward by now argument, because you know what, they wouldn't be believed...

I've been here since around 2002 ish,..under different names...i was part of billy no mates (people on here came together to form two teams) at sleepless in the saddle at Trentham circa whenever... does that make me a Troll? 🙂

Are you suggesting that such a carefully planned false flag operation failed at such a basic level?

Are you applying critical thinking?

...it has yet to fail...and likely never will...

the vast majority of humans are used to fake tv....it makes it harder to see the truth IMHO.

That suggests you me you’ve made your mind up and are looking for reinforcement rather than fact.

If that’s the case good luck but I’m out

"In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?" See above but:
Suits in Manhattan ! What next aprons in butcher's shops!
Every available law/security asset would flood the streets being interested in everything.
Do you seriously think operational spooks wear a clearly identifiable uniform when operational ? Men in Black it's even in the movies !

i really don't buy,...the people would have come forward by now argument, because you know what, they wouldn't be believed...

🙄

I've been here since around 2002 ish,..under different names...i was part of billy no mates (people on here came together to form two teams) at sleepless in the saddle at Trentham circa whenever... does that make me a Troll?

WTF are you on about? You are trolling successfully as I am responding to the utter horseshit you are spouting and I can't believe than anyone remotely sane can believe crap like in that video you posted. If you do think that's some kind of "smoking gun" then you need help.

So you took part in a 24hr bike ride, why does that prveent you from trolling?

How odd is that to say a burning building that caught fire fell down , structurally failed due to fire .

Very odd, ...as it is a very, very, very, very rare occurrence,..and three on one day is pushing it a little.

anyone remotely sane can believe crap like in that video

feel free to ignore the text overlays...there is probably a version out there without them...

stop with the hate please.

How rare is it to fly two jets into the two tallest buildings in the world that are right next to another building ?

"In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?" See above but:
Suits in Manhattan ! What next aprons in butcher's shops!
Every available law/security asset would flood the streets being interested in everything.
Do you seriously think operational spooks wear a clearly identifiable uniform when operational ? Men in Black it's even in the movies !

....their mannerisms and what they said...rather than what they are wearing more so... if a secret service guy goes to work every day in a suit and then on 9/11 it was mufti day,..that may have been even more suspicious?

How rare is it to fly two jets into the two tallest buildings in the world that are right next to another building ?

rare....but easily doable if two bent out of shape amateur pilots at your local airport made a pact tomorrow they could easily achieve a two plane, two buildings close to another one event...

only rare because its crazy - not rare because it is not easily achievable

3 high rise steel structure buildings collapse mainly due to fire on the same day....very....you get it...

if a secret service guy goes to work every day in a suit and then on 9/11 it was mufti day,..that may have been even more suspicious?

I'm struggling to follow your logic.

So the fact that, according you, they look like secret service, that is because they would be more suspicious if they didn't look like secret service?

Are they trying to hide or be noticed?

If they were trying the hide, then surely the 2nd "MIB" in the video, who incidentally I agree is probably something to do with the security services, would not of walked in front of the camera and gave such an obviously "no comment" type answer when the reporter spoke to him. Surely if he was trying to hide, why would be acting like he did?

From the words you are using, I guess you are ex-military, my guess you did a couple of years in your local TA. Correct?

I'm struggling to follow your logic.

So the fact that, according you, they look like secret service, that is because they would be more suspicious if they didn't look like secret service?

Are they trying to hide or be noticed?

If they were trying the hide, then surely the 2nd "MIB" in the video, who incidentally I agree is probably something to do with the security services, would not of walked in front of the camera and gave such an obviously "no comment" type answer when the reporter spoke to him. Surely if he was trying to hide, why would be acting like he did?

From the words you are using, I guess you are ex-military, my guess you did a couple of years in your local TA. Correct?

i'm really not concerned by what they are wearing,...[b]more interested in their actions and what was said[/b]...SS is SS however you dress it...would they be less suspicious wearing a t-shirt and shorts....sure...but they were not.

i had a vision of them all in headquarters in casual attire...sure to raise suspicion amongst cleaners, tea ladies and people from other businesses in the complex...but that is mere play...

could be that the awkwardness displayed by no.2 guy was out of sheer embarrassment...i'm summissing..

...no military background.

This:

i'm really not concerned by what they are wearing,..

Contradicts this:

if a secret service guy goes to work every day in a suit and then on 9/11 it was mufti day,..that may have been even more suspicious?

Then you state:

would they be less suspicious wearing a t-shirt and shorts....sure.

Make your mind up.

could be that the awkwardness displayed by no.2 guy was out of sheer embarrassment...

Why would he be embarrassed? According to you, he's just been part of the greatest false flag operation the World has ever known. Professionally it doesn't get any better!

Or possibly, he's completely overawed by what he has just witnessed, as were all of us, he has been sent out on the streets to "do something", not sure exactly what but "something", by his boss and also as he thinks he should be doing something. But what is he meant to do? Nobody knows. Everyone is just reeling and coming to terms with what is happening. The City is in chaos.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

Could someone paint this as perfectly normal?

In light of terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers?

Yes.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...

What are the odds that out of the hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions within spitting distance of the towers that one of them happened to be one of the many thousands that had worked for Fox?

Quite high you mentalist. 💡

3 high rise steel structure buildings collapse mainly due to *fire on the same day....very....you get it...

It was a coordinated terrorist attack you moog, and yes, they are few and far between quite thankfully.

* lets forget the planes flying into two of them at hundreds of miles an hour, shall we?

"3 high rise steel structure buildings collapse mainly due to fire on the same day....very....you get it... high rise steel structure buildings collapse mainly due to fire on the same day....very....you get it..."
You realise that 100% of all skyscrapers damaged by fires caused by airliners flying into their upper floors have collapsed in this way ?
Also 100% of all high rise buildings built over holes damaged by debris from two falling skyscrapers where fires have been burning unchecked for seven hours collapse in this way ?

Back to your video what is the point for the conspiracy in having an actor give that interview at that time ?

Back to your video what is the point for the conspiracy in having an actor give that interview at that time ?

To reinforce the false narrative.

 

To reinforce the false narrative

What was the false narrative?

What was the false narrative?

Indeed. I’m guessing the honest answer to that is

“Everything [b]they[/b] say is lies”

And the people who think like that, just trawl around looking for scraps of “proof” to justify their position.

There is no critical thought involved whatsoever.

It’s just an entrenched position (that everything is a conspiracy) and then a trawl for “justification by YouTube”

All totally pointless.

All totally pointless

That's what [b][i]THEY[/i][/b] want you to think.

To reinforce the false narrative.

So this whole conspiracy has been blown wide open, by a 3 minute interview, that is so badly planned and handled by the same team who planned and executed the rest if it.

I bet you the rest of that project team was pissed!

All that work, weeks of crawling through floor spaces and access spaces, fitting miles of det cord, preparing charges, high jacking aircraft, executing civilians and/or creating new identities for them, destroying tonnes of evidence etc etc, and the whole lot is for nowt, because of a interview, that's pretty pointless in the scheme of things, blows the cover.

If I was on the operational team, I would be having words with the false narrative reinforcement team. Talk about dropping the ball!

what false narrative that two planes flew into the towers ? is that false ? that there was a fire ? is that false ? that the towers fell down ? is that false?
The secret service set up an interview using a scandal prone blubber mouth to plant a false narrative that simply records the observable facts , and are so dumb witted they put two people in obvious and unique secret service black suits #1 in front of the camera while the staged interview is taking place. Simultaneously pointlessly Machiavellian and grossly incompetent.

#1 it appears most New York limousine drivers are members of the secret service . It also appears if you look for images of SS responding to unplanned emergencies that every other day is mufti day. in fact it is only body guarding politicians that reguarly attracts dark suits, well that and dealing with space aliens as per the well known documentary featuring Will Smith.

its nuts that they think the secret service guy would just mill around in the background clearly visible and this proof. The beauty though is if he had moved out of shot he would be trying to hide and that would be proof

we have a man in a suit in a city...its hardy unusual...but its proof of the conspiracy

I find it hard to believe that people still claim that the towers collapsed as a rwsulr of thermite, when it was clearly the work of the cythrons...:)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That explains all the cylindrical holes, punched into the wtc buildings...

Time tunnels, obviously!

I don't know a lot about acting but I know that wasn't acting. The only odd thing about that video was it kept freezing and JHJ quotes would pop up from time to time.

Hmm, now where were we, last I remember no-one was disputing the facts presented here... speak now if you find any errors

Just a quick recap...

Over the last month, Al Waleed Bin Talal and Bandar Bin Sultan have both reportedly been detained as part of the Saudi Purge; there have also been suggestions of further investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal

Still no word on Turki Bin Faisal though...

[url= https://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-peak/feathered-cocaine_b_4392859.html ]Feathered Cocaine[/url]

With some of the richest and most powerful men in the world visiting these falconry camps, the camps also attract some of the world’s most undesirable — like weapons smuggler and the inspiration for the movie, Lord of War, Viktor Bout, who was frequently a guest at royal falconry camps. [b]But the most infamous guest was Osama bin Laden, who, for many years, made annual visits to the royal falconry camps in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates during a time when he was already wanted around the world for mass murder. Former Saudi Ambassador, Prince Turki bin Faisal hunted with bin Laden often, and bin Laden was a VIP guest at the falconry camp organized by the former foreign minister from the U.A.E. bin Laden was so involved in falconry during the ‘90s and 2000s, that during the time he lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan, he stole most of the falcons from the surrounding tribes for his own personal use, giving the best birds as gifts to royal sheiks in the Emirates, and princes in Saudi Arabia.[/b]

Not forgetting of course that it was Turki bin Faisal's sister (Bandar Bin Sultan's wife) who was involved in money finding it's way from the Riggs account set up by the UK paymaster general to the hijackers support network.

Though it's not a direct mention of the falconry camps, there is this [url= http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,480226,00.html ]Time Article[/url]:

Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." [b]Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do."[/b] The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. [b]To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. [/b]

[b]Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief.[/b] Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom.

Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. [b]There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named. [/b]

Posner told TIME he got the details of Zubaydah's interrogation and revelations from a U.S. official outside the cia at a "very senior Executive Branch level" whose name we would probably know if he told it to us. He did not. The second source, Posner said, was from the cia, and he gave what Posner viewed as general confirmation of the story

There's another unanswered question. If Turki and Mir were cutting deals with bin Laden, were they acting at the behest of their governments or on their own? [b]Posner avoids any direct statement, but the book implies that they were doing official, if covert, business.[/b]

(To clarify, that's the same Turki Bin Faisal... his full name is actually Turki bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud )

If there's any gaps you need filling in of the details provided within that post, do tell.

Hmm, now where were we .... etc.

You had been asked multiple times for your conclusions based on the information you had cut and pasted from other sources.

You’ve still not given any.

So. The floor is yours. Fire away whenever you are ready.

So what are these sources? Single articles or corroborated documentary evidence?

As a matter of interest, would you take the Chilcot report as corroborated documentary evidence?

I’d rather take your conclusions that have been repeatedly asked for, but repeatedly not given.

It’s getting a bit daft now.

Are you embarrassed or something ?

Hmm, now where were we, last I remember no-one was disputing the facts presented here... speak now if you find any errors

As a matter of interest, would you take the Chilcot report as corroborated documentary evidence?

* Puts hand up

Sir, sir - what does...

Posner told TIME he got the details of Zubaydah's interrogation and revelations from a U.S. official outside the cia at a "very senior Executive Branch level" whose name we would probably know if he told it to us. He did not. 

.. prove about anything, sir?

Jive can you articulately and concisely explain what you think the conspiracy behind 9/11 is without use of links, cut and paste or random photos that juxtapose famous people.

POSTED 1 DAY AGO #
Still waiting! Just saying like...

It get's tricky though... impartiality of those that contributed to the Chilcot report is questionable at best; for example:

The military advisor to the Chilcot report [url= http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-inquiry/the-committee/general-sir-roger-wheeler/ ]General Sir Roger Wheeler[/url], aside from being paid massive amounts in his work for the inquiry, also happens to be on the board of Aegis Defence Services, who were involved in all kinds of dodgy business during the invasion of Iraq (you can find further mention of Aegis Defence Services earlier in this thread)

That is but one example, questions remain about Chilcot himself.

As for conclusions, as GWglover keeps demanding, I have to refer back to Max Cleland of the 9/11 commission for now, as there is far more to come:

"I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."

That said, I can give a brief summary:

There's some dodgy business that hasn't been adequately investigated...

That you say "more is to come" suggests you have delivered something of import already. This is not the case.

As for conclusions, as GWglover keeps demanding, I have to refer back to Max Cleland of the 9/11 commission for now, as there is far more to come:

"I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."

So no conclusions no evidence no facts ? The rest of us can stick with AQ flew two planes into the twin towers that caused the destruction of WTC 1,2 and 7 and one plane into the pentagon and hijacked a 4th that crashed. The Americans may have supported people who became AQ years before 9/11 but that is unconnected to 9/11. Yep all good then.

I'm not going to be part of just coming to [b]quick conclusions[/b]

Yeah, and he said that, what, 15 years ago ?

And he was probably right to say it too.

You however, are just using it as an excuse to talk shit without stating an opinion.

Sad.

....hasn't been adequately investigated...

Sums up your efforts perfectly.

You're conveniently forgetting what the 28 pages revealed about Saudi Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan and Abu Zubaydah, not to mention that Turki Bin Faisal, (mentioned above) became Saudi Ambassador to the US after 9/11...

So no conclusions no evidence no facts ?

You're conveniently forgetting what the 28 pages revealed about Saudi Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan and Abu Zubaydah, not to mention that Turki Bin Faisal, (mentioned above) became Saudi Ambassador to the US after 9/11...

And ?

So what. What does any of that prove.

So no conclusions no evidence no facts ?

Well, you waited long enough for the Chilcot report and you were paying for that... much like you were paying for the war that led to it and the contractors Her Majesty's government chose.

How would you feel if you were paying Turki Bin Faisal's wages?

Bandar Bin Sultan's?

Osama Bin Laden's?

[quote=jivebunny]Waffle waffle waffle.

All irrelevant to the question asked.

So no conclusions no evidence no facts ?

Your waffle is, but I'm right on topic...

You're conveniently forgetting what the 28 pages revealed about Saudi Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan and Abu Zubaydah, not to mention that Turki Bin Faisal, (mentioned above) became Saudi Ambassador to the US after 9/11...

You're conveniently forgetting what the 28 pages revealed about Saudi Ambassador Bandar Bin Sultan and Abu Zubaydah, not to mention that Turki Bin Faisal, (mentioned above) became Saudi Ambassador to the US after 9/11...

And ?

What does any of that prove ?

.

(Same post cut and pasted from when I posted it half an hour ago 🙄 )