Saudi role in 9/11

Will the trial of the century expose the crime of the century?


Editor’s note: In my interview with Press TV extracted above, I emphasized that there were no hijackers or hijackings on 9/11, as proven by the work of such researchers as Elias Davidsson. I explained that the 15 Saudi patsies were in fact CIA agents brought to the US on CIA “snitch visas”—a special type of work visa used to reward CIA assets in the  Kingdom. I explained that the main “foreign sponsor” of 9/11 was not Saudi Arabia, an oil colony whose stunningly incompetent government barely exists as a sovereign entity, but Israel. And I expressed hope that as the case against the Saudis proceeds, they will defend themselves by exposing the truth—perhaps even by bringing alleged hijackers out of witness protection and allowing them to testify. Unfortunately, 95% of the interview was left on the cutting room floor, and what remained supported the ludicrous official conspiracy theory blaming “suicide hijackers.”  –Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

Saudi role in 9/11

Press TV

These are the headlines we are tracking for you in this episode of On the News Line:

Saudi role in 9/11

It’s been described as a blow to Saudi Arabia to cover up its role in 2001 terrorist attacks. A US district judge has rejected a motion filed by Saudi Arabia to end a long-standing litigation over Riyadh’s involvement in 9/11 attacks.  Judge George Daniels in Manhattan says there’s “reasonable basis” to assert jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks. Daniels says the allegations put forward by the victims’ relatives “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis for this Court to assume jurisdiction under JASTA”. JASTA which stands for Justice Against Sponsors Of Terrorism Act, was passed in 2016. Then President Barrack Obama vetoed the bill but the Congress overrode his veto and turned it into a law. It has paved the way for legal action to continue against foreign states suspected of supporting terrorism. Over 800 people who were hurt in the attacks or lost their loved ones in the tragedy filed the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia over a year ago.

US complicity in Yemen war

The United States has drawn fire from rights groups for its support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The war, which entered its fourth year this week, has destroyed Yemen’s infrastructure and triggered a humanitarian catastrophe there. But the United States is increasingly defiant and is making no secret of its deadly role. America’s involvement was once thought to be limited to logistical and intelligence support. But the US involvement has deepened far beyond that level over the course of the war which began in March 2015. US defense chief James Mattis has revealed that America’s military is even doing the planning in the aerial bombardment campaign. The airstrikes have been notoriously indiscriminate resulting in a high number of civilian casualties. Mattis has also offered new details about US mid-air refueling of Saudi jets. He claims such assistance has helped reduce civilian deaths because Saudi pilots can take their time when hitting their targets. This while over fourteen thousands Yemenis have died in the Saudi war mostly in the airstrikes.

Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. Quoting…”Unfortunately, 95% of the interview was left on the cutting room floor, and what remained supported the ludicrous official conspiracy theory blaming “suicide hijackers.” Indeed. One may wonder what would have happened if Press TV had duly, timely and properly informed its audience of 9/11’s essence as a barely covered false flag.

    This incidentally leads to an important 9/11-related question: since this particular false flag is so easy to teach and carries such big consequences, what persuaded Press TV to not understand it? From there, an essential question can be straightforwardly derived: did any institutions other than Press TV similarly spread the fancy 9/11 cover tale instead of informing their audiences of the self-evident nature of 9/11?


Comments are closed.