Inside the 'Saudi 9/11 cover up' and report which will never be made public

PAUL SPERRY NEW YORK POST DECEMBER 16, 2013 8:59AM

AFTER the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with "specific sources of foreign support" for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today, the New York Post reported.

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section.

The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are "absolutely shocked" at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they've proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, "Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001."

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically.

The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

The findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:

LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)

SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)

WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were "welfare" for Bassnan's supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers' hands.

Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.

The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.

"Our investigations contributed to the ambassador's departure," an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for "personal reasons."

FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.

Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va, chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the ­official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.

Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.

As I first reported in my book, Infiltration, quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a "Saudi representative." A federal warrant for Awlaki's arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he "feigned a seizure," one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)

SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched, the New York Post reported.

Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it's a "coverup."

Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on September 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a "coverup beyond belief." Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.

Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.

Granted, it's not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.

But it's critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn't water under the bridge. The information is still relevant ­today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.

As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, "State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States."

Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.

Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration and Muslim Mafia.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup-and-the-report-which-will-never-be-made-public/story-fni0ffnk-1226783801167

I find it weird that when it was a no fly ban, bush got bin ladens relos out of america. bush and the bin ladens are old family freinds

>attacks Iraq

Of course Saudi officials were involved - Bin Laden was Saudi. And an affluent and influential one at that.

well his family own half of intel and basically half of american intrests .

While Iraq was a massive failure, it's not hard to see why, the Americans were afraid of terrorists getting hands on a WMD. Saddam played a cat and mouse game with the U.N. inspectors over his WMD program, expelling them numerous times, what would you think?

Then you had Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney who from the very start of 9/11 were intent on finishing off Saddam from the first gulf war.

Then you had the informant Curveball who was an Iraqi defector claiming to have worked on Iraq's WMD program, which ended up being a lie.

The U.S. were too willing.

As for the Saudis is it any surprise, the Saudi family came to power with the help of Wahhabis, and the Saudi govt supported the predecessor of Al-Queda.

Qatari and Saudi businessman continue to support wahhabism, lately in Mali and Syria where sadly the U.S. also support the FSA who fight alongside the radical groups.

That's great, but the Iraq war and 9/11 were completely mutually exclusive events. Y'know, that whole Afghanistan thing came first.

I don't see your point, I'm responding to him about Iraq.

[youtube]a2FWtELWUS0[/youtube]

The point is that there is no point. Iraq is essentially completely irrelevant to the topic.

If there was no 9/11 there would of been no Iraq war, and I am responding to a forum member, which I'm allowed to do, and the latter part of my post was why I'm not surprised by this.

#relevant

I don't think 9/11 was in any way relevant to the Iraq war. The US still sought to neutralize the weapons it had sold to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and had sought to do so for a long time. There was so much political instability with Iraq's allies and regional bickering that the US could have used any number of justifications for an invasion. The global insecurity created by 9/11 was just one in a litany of tempest blamed on the region. The two events really had little more to do with each other than anything else at the time.

Iraq was mentioned immediately after 9/11 happened, it was mentioned that Afghanistan would be first then Iraq, the U.S. actually had several countries lined up including Sudan, Iran and Syria. All were to be part of the U.S. new "global war on terror" which Iraq ended up being apart of, which was a consequence of 9/11. The U.S. was fearful of Saddams apparent weapons ending up in Terrorist hands, as well as wanting to finish off a job started in the first gulf war.

None of Iraq's neighbours except Kuwait supported the U.S. invasion and I highly doubt we would of seen a full-scale invasion of Iraq had 9/11 not happened.

I'm off the PC to watch Ted.



Edited by iridium1010: 17/12/2013 01:26:58 AM

Iraq would have been invaded regardless of 9/11 owing to their political stance on Egypt, Israel and Syria (not to mention Iran) encouraging regional tensions, combined with the fact that they still had much of the military hardware sold to them during the Iran-Iraq war. Not only were the US concerned about US military hardware falling into the wrong hands, but also that Iraq could turn a cold war hot by sparking conflict with Russian backed countries.

Iran were never going to be invaded owing to the fact that the US knew they actually had nuclear capabilities.

Edited by Draupnir: 17/12/2013 02:11:51 AM

Just because they say they're related doesn't mean that they're immediately connected. It was later used as a public reasoning for the US to combat other underlying issues.

Like I said, I don't believe that the war wouldn't have happened without 9/11. There were a large number of other regional issues which were equally as important.

#-o

-PB

Can't change what happened more than a decade ago, though it'd be nice to bring a few of the senior Saudis to justice.

All I get from this is to distrust Islamic "charity" organisations which are often a front for illegal activities. It's happened here as well, not just in the US.

Whether you think U.S. would of went to war with Iraq had 9/11 not happened is not important, the fact is they're connected because the U.S. made them connected.

This argument is very petty, but that doesn't surprise me at all.

I am shocked.

#firstpost

The connection is outlined in some detail in Fahrenheit 9/11. Obvious that Saudi was involved on some level and that Bush protected his pals and family interests.

Similarly, the Iraqi war was bugger all to do with WMD's, the CIA had told Bush they didn't have them well before the conflict began, Bush even made jokes about not being able to find the things (such disregard for the loss of life was absurdly ignored by the media). Iraq war was all about finishing Daddy's fight with Saddam.

I do hope you're trolling with this. :S

It's fact that the intelligence services couldn't find any evidence of WMDs, it's also fact that Bush joked about not being able to find them - looking behind the curtains in the Oval office whilst journalists laughed. Bush Sr f*cked up by not finishing Saddam off when he had the chance, Bush Jr made sure he got the job done.

I'm pretty sure the US knew Saddam had WMD's, because the gave them to him.

Mossad Truck Bombs on Sept 11
[youtube]3aKj6uJ5Mt4[/youtube]

Israel and September 11 9/11
[youtube]8OyUoGUV7b8[/youtube]

9-11 Cop Who Arrested Dancing Israelis Speaks
[youtube]0-B2J7tp8eg[/youtube]

Saddam Hussein had a long, and well documented history of evading his obligations re. weaponry, and equivocating as to whether such weapons existed.

As to the origins of Hussein's weaponry, I think you'll find that the vast majority of it lends its provenance to France, and Russia. This is not to say that the US didn't provide weaponry.

btw: LOL at quoting Michael Moore as an authority on anything. The man who thinks he can stick it to corporate capitalism by harassing low wage security personnel. True man of the people, he is.

Where do you think Syria got their chemical weapons from?