text: 
  Inside the Saudi 9/11 Coverup - NN88
  http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
  ======
  tsunamifury
  Coverup? Entire blockbuster films were made about this which explicitly linked
  the two (The Kingdom). Don't mistake people either not caring or not
  understanding with a coverup.
  
  Watch the opening title sequence for one of the best summaries of the linked
  events building to 9/11 and the Saudi response here:
  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW71JuzHr5o)
  
  ~~~
  crystaln
  The existence of unofficially recognized evidence and conclusions does not
  preclude a coverup. The government is not releasing documents or recognizing
  facts, and people who are open to a more sinister truth are marginalized.
  
  ~~~
  NN88
  I'm kinda amazed that after 12 years, info is not only leaking out, but is
  still painting a picture of what damn near everyone thought in the first
  place...
  
  ------
  pvnick
  I sometimes try to imagine what would have happened had Flight 93 reached it's
  presumed target, the Capitol Building [1]. I was young at the time, around 12
  or 13, but I do remember quite vividly the atmosphere of fear that engulfed my
  country in the wake of the attacks. I cringe to think of how much worse it
  could have been had Congress been directly and successfully attacked. Our
  democracy was already in an extremely fragile condition. A plane hitting the
  Capitol Building on that day likely would have guaranteed it's immediate
  demise [2].
  
  [1]
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93)
  
  [2]
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)
  
  ~~~
  VLM
  Wasn't our democracy destroyed anyway? No more civil rights, eternal war,
  single party rule (the rich guys) etc?
  
  ~~~
  alexeisadeski3
  At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates.
  
  Edit:
  
  For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the
  highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or _the_
  highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, _and_ arguably the lowest tax burden on
  poor/middle class in OECD:
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates)
  
  ~~~
  nkoren
  That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking!
  
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-
  income.png)
  
  [edit] Also:
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg)
  [/edit]
  
  ~~~
  alexeisadeski3
  First chart cuts off in '09, before Obamas tax hikes. Also probably doesn't
  include state/local income tax burden (!!). US has one of harshest tax regimes
  for top earners, and amongst most progressive regimes in OECD (arguably THE
  most progressive).
  
  Second chart is straight nonsense: counts unrepatriated money - capital stuck
  abroad whilst awaiting change in broken US corp tax policy - as taxed at zero
  percent!
  
  Both are cute gimmicks and nothing more.
  
  ~~~
  FireBeyond
  Please, before you start calling things 'cute gimmicks', provide a citation,
  especially for this claim: "US has one of the harshest tax regimes for top
  earners".
  
  Because per multiple sources, including this one:
  [http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-
  tax...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-taxes/) \-
  it's demonstrably wrong, and not even close:
  
  "France has the highest tax rate with a 75% rate on millionaires. In the U.S.,
  the fight is over whether to extend the top rate to little more than half that
  amount."
  
  "In Washington, of course, the fight is over whether to raise the top rate to
  a level just over half the amount they are arguing about in France -- to 39.6%
  from 35%. By contrast, numerous countries have top rates in the low to
  mid-50s, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Japan and Sweden. The
  world's highest rate is levied in sunny Aruba, where people making more than
  $171,000 face a top rate of 58.95%, according to figures compiled by KPMG."
  
  As does this link: [http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-
  are-...](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-
  the-5-countries-with-the/) \- which also casts significant aspersions on your
  claim:
  
  "For comparison: The United States
  
  2012 top rate of income taxes: 35% (rising to 39.6% in 2013) Effective tax
  rate on $100,000: 26% (7.3% Social Security, 18.7% income tax) World rank on
  effective tax rate of $100,000: 55 Effective tax rate on $300,000: 30.5% (3.7%
  Social Security, 26.8% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of
  $300,000: 53"
  
  ~~~
  alexeisadeski3
  Top US tax rate is over 55%:
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates)
  
  Going over 58% in 2014, thanks to Obamacare levy.
  
  Like I said, _one_ of the highest in OECD. And arguably most _progressive_ in
  all of OECD: US lacks severe excise taxes and VATs which target the poor and
  middle class, coupled with generously progressive income tax brackets.
  
  And of course those infamously high US corporate tax rates: often double the
  rates of other OECD nations (same link).
  
  ~~~
  FireBeyond
  Hmm, interesting link. Confusing though, because the citations for:
  
  "55.9% (max of federal+state+local) 10%-39.6% (federal)[136] + 0%-13.3%
  (state)[137] + 0%-3% (local)"
  
  lead to a link at the Tax Foundation that lists /only/ "Selected Federal
  Rates":
  
  "136\. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax Foundation.
  Retrieved 2013-05-17. 137\. "State Corporate Income Tax Rates, 2000-2013". Tax
  Foundation. Retrieved 2013-05-17."
  
  Despite the titles thereof. I find it odd, too, that all the US references are
  to the Tax Foundation, which has had numerous criticisms leveled at it as a
  conservative think tank, not least of which:
  
  "US economist Paul Krugman has characterised the Tax Foundation as "not a
  reliable source" while criticizing a report by the Tax Foundation comparing
  corporate tax rates in the United States to those in other countries.[46]
  Krugman has also accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in
  connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.[47]"
  
  There's all this not insubstantial disclaimer to your table:
  
  "Some other taxes (for instance property tax, substantial in many countries,
  such as the USA) are not shown here. The table is not intended to represent
  the true tax burden to either the corporation or the individual in the listed
  country."
  
  Not that there's not pause for thought. But it's intriguing that multiple
  independent sources list our highest task rates around the 30th to 55th in the
  world, but yet the Tax Foundation lists at nearly the top.
  
  ------
  joejohnson
  >>A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the
  previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.
  
  Super handy that the US Government can kill people now without a trial or due
  process of any kind.
  
  ~~~
  dragonwriter
  The US government has always been able to wage war, and has never required
  trial or due process to kill the enemy in war.
  
  ~~~
  maratd
  The constitution requires a declaration of war. That requirement has been
  withered away in recent years, don't you think? It was there to prevent
  exactly this sort of nonsense.
  
  ~~~
  rayiner
  Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does
  not specify that this declaration need take any particular form. I've never
  seen a convincing explanation for why Congressional authorization such as the
  AUMF doesn't qualify as an exercise of Congress's powers under Article I,
  Section 8. Especially considering that the practice of Congress authorizing
  military actions without a formal declaration of war dates back almost to the
  founding:
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress).
  
  ------
  patrickg_zill
  "Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation
  identified by it without violating federal law. "
  
  Pretty significant sentence, in this case. Much hangs from it, in the sense
  that if the official government narrative and this classified information
  differ greatly - then the Federal govt has been involved in what is
  essentially a huge propaganda operation.
  
  ~~~
  kps
  America _appears_ to have an analogue of Parliamentary privilege¹ written into
  the US Constitution (“ _for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall
  not be questioned in any other Place_ ”), so why can't they discuss it there?
  
      
      
        ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
  
  ~~~
  dlitz
  'except Felony'
  
  ~~~
  dragonwriter
  There's two separate provisions of the Speech and Debate clause:
  
  1) Members can't be arrested while attending a session of their House of
  Congress, or while travelling to or from such a session, except in relation to
  charges of "Treason, Felony, and Breach of Peace."
  
  and:
  
  2) Members can't be held accountable for any speech or debate in their House
  _except_ by the same House itself.
  
  The "Treason, Felony, or Breach of Peace" exception has nothing to do with the
  second provision.
  
  ~~~
  dlitz
  Your argument seems to make sense, but why does everyone seem to agree that it
  would still be a felony, then?
  
  ------
  MisterWebz
  "She had accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign
  nationals, alleged serious security breaches and cover-ups and that
  intelligence had been deliberately suppressed, endangering national security."
  
  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds)
  
  ~~~
  joejohnson
  From Wikipedia: "Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her
  testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report."
  
  Publicly questioning the official 9/11 story is a great way to be ridiculed.
  The media and other propaganda outlets have so effectively labelled anything
  contrary to the party line as "conspiracy theory", discrediting anyone who
  points out the hundreds and hundreds of holes in the official story. The only
  credible theory (taking a cold look at the facts that have come to light over
  the past 12 years) is that AT THE VERY LEAST the US Government knew about 9/11
  in advance.
  
  Maybe, with time, it will become more socially acceptable to openly wonder
  what really happened. And probably by that time, most people won't give a
  shit.
  
  ~~~
  thenmar
  Could you provide a summary or breakdown (with sources?) of the facts about
  the U.S. government knowing about 9/11 in advance (and allowing it to happen
  when they could have stopped it or evacuated the buildings, as you're
  implying)?
  
  If you do have some knowledge I don't, putting it in an accessible form like
  that would be very helpful - a lot of 9/11 "truth" material is steeped in
  scifi conspiracy nonsense or global elite lizard people type stuff. Or if you
  ask for clarification, you're told to watch a 2 hour youtube video filled with
  "many experts agree that this is wrong" weasel words.
  
  ~~~
  joejohnson
  There's interesting information and links here:
  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commissio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission)
  
  One particularly good example: John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the
  Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and
  military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the
  public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably,
  untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in
  time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The
  (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us
  and the public."[1] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred:
  "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so
  far from the truth."
  
  [1]: [http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/books-and-
  literature/r...](http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/books-and-
  literature/reviews/the-ground-
  truth/article_97bbba18-d273-5995-96ed-33a05a57e1ed.html)
  
  ------
  616c
  And for your viewing pleasure, the obligatory XKCD reference.
  
  [http://xkcd.com/258/](http://xkcd.com/258/)
  
  There is probably more than meets the eye because the brain matter behind them
  is making it so.
  
  ~~~
  twobits
  If you put everything under one name, it helps ridiculing the plausible
  theories by injecting stupid ones.
  
  ~~~
  javert
  Yep. Ayn Rand called this "package dealing," though she wasn't thinkimng about
  conspiracy theories in particular.
  
  For instance, "selfish." Is that pursuing rational long-term values, or is
  that victimizing others in a futile attempt at short-term gain? Catholic
  priests lumped them together _intentionally_ since the middle ages, and so it
  continues throughout our culture today to help justify various kinds of
  collectivism.
  
  Today people are doing it with "conspiracy theories" to try to prevent
  challenges to their worldview. But the fact is, sometimes, conspiracies
  actually do happen!
  
  ------
  kbar13
  The NY Post is not exactly the most credible news source.
  
  ~~~
  richardjordan
  and this is why the politicians and the media elites are able to brush off
  these uncomfortable facts
  
  ~~~
  Patrick_Devine
  The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, and extraordinary claims require
  extraordinary proof.
  
  If there is a conspiracy to wage war against the US, there better damn well be
  a more creditable news source than a sensationalist tabloid, owned by Rupert
  Murdoch, than the NY Post.
  
  ~~~
  richardjordan
  There's nothing particularly extraordinary in these claims.
  
  ~~~
  Patrick_Devine
  Other than a foreign power, _one of this country 's largest trading partners_,
  aided and abetted criminals who staged the largest act of aggression ever
  inflicted on any country in the last 50 years.
  
  You have an interesting definition of the word "extraordinary". Also, let me
  tell you about a little tea pot which is right now in orbit around the sun.
  
  ------
  caublestone
  What was the motivation for Saudi Arabia to carry out these attacks? Was it an
  independent decision by Saudi elite? Did any events take place that would
  encourage vengeance of some kind? And why did it take place just once?
  
  ------
  ilaksh
  The Saudis were helping the US since we are allies. 9/11 was a false-flag
  attack.
  
  [http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/loui...](http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2009/04/louis-
  freeh-interview.html)
  
  ------
  pvdm
  [http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8&](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNR6Kbg5jJ8&)
  
  In case no one has seen this.
  
  ~~~
  DonGateley
  A link with no explanation pretty much guarantees that no one will either.
  
  ~~~
  pvdm
  The OP is pointing a finger at the Saudis. However, there are many unexplained
  discrepancies in the official account of 9/11 that suggests a deeper
  conspiracy.
  
  ------
  maxharris
  Given this evidence, Leonard Peikoff's essay on the subject is worth
  examining. It was published a couple of months after the attacks:
  
  [http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf](http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Peikoff.pdf)
  
  ~~~
  javert
  For people who don't want to read the essay, I'll just say:
  
  Peikoff argues that modern terrorism is almost entirely coming about through
  sponsorship by a couple of very, very bad states, and simply ending those
  states in a proper, just war would solve the problem and make "Fortress
  America" unnecessary. (Any mistakes here are likely my own, not his.)
  
  maxharris, wasn't this actually a full-page ad in the NYT? Could be wrong but
  for some reason I thought it was.
  
  ~~~
  maxharris
  Yes, this was a full-page ad in the NYT.
  
  ------
  altero
  So what? Most terrorist attacks on US were orchestrated by FBI or secred
  services, who spoon-fed attackers, give them bomb and 'catched' them. Nobody
  cares.
  
  ~~~
  richardjordan
  sadly this is exactly right - the American people don't care - they pretend
  they do but in reality they will just do what they're told to by the media and
  the politicians from whichever side of the one party with two faces they
  pretend they're aligned with
  
  ~~~
  jlas
  Speak for yourself. What about the thousands of families who lost loved ones
  in the attacks?
  
  The American people have strong values and big hearts. You shouldn't confuse
  their apathy for politics as a lack of sympathy.
  
  ~~~
  richardjordan
  where did i confuse apathy for lack of sympathy?
  
  ------
  arangus
  A very interesting documentary that many people haven't seen:
  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2nXcMDLs)
  
  ------
  jgalt212
  What's Bush's interest in protecting the Saudis?
  
  It certainly would have been a lot cheaper to invade SA than Iraq.
  
  ~~~
  if_by_whisky
  Wat
  
  