Suppressed Proof: Saudi Arabia Was Complicit in 9/11

Jim Fetzer — Veterans Today Feb 23, 2014

Since 15 of the 19 alleged suicide terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq, would it not have made more sense to have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?”

It has now become clear that a major cover-up has been imposed on the Saudi connection to the Israeli/CIA “false flag” attack of 9/11, where the Saudis put up the patsies.

There were traitors inside the US Air Force at NORAD who assisted the Neo-Cons in the Department of Defense and the CIA in the execution of the atrocities of 9/11.

Its purpose was to drive the US into an otherwise entirely unprovoked and unjustified series of wars in the Middle East, which Prince Bandar may have even planned, whose principal beneficiaries would be Israel and Saudi Arabia. For the US, it has been an expensive (now over $4 trillion) proposition.

Numerous, highly-connected sources with the US intel community have confirmed that a 28-page section of the Congressional “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” (2002) has been completely redacted.

Intel sources have also confirmed that this cover-up was implemented as a result of pressure brought to bear by AIPAC, the Israeli lobby. As Jamie Remo has astutely observed, “It has never been fully explained why the pages were blacked out, but President Bush stated in 2003 that releasing the pages would violate national security.”

That is reminiscent of the classification of documents and records by the Warren Commission for 75 years, where if their account of the death of JFK were true, there was no “national security dimension” to the case. What is also becoming increasingly apparent is that Saudi Arabia, like the US itself, has been serving as Israel’s errand boy.

The sources for information about this event come from those as dubious as The New York Post, “Inside the Saudi 9/11 Cover-Up” (2013), and as reliable as Thom Harmann, “House Reps. Mobilizing for Declassification of 28 Suppressed Pages on 9/11 Terrorist Attacks”.

But the author of the Post article, which appeared on 15 December 2013, turns out to be an expert on the subject. While the Congressmen, Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA), have read the report and were shocked by its contents, they are restricted by law from revealing what they learned–and are therefore moving to have the entire report declassified.

As Rep. Jones observed in a press release. “If the 9/11 hijackers had outside help – particularly from one or more foreign governments – the press and the public have a right to know what our government has or has not done to bring justice to all of the perpetrators. . . [T]he information contained in the redacted pages is critical to our foreign policy.”

The bill they have introduced, H.R. 428, titled “Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States”, would release to the public those 28 pages, which were originally classified by President George W. Bush, who had especially close relations with Saudi Arabia.

The New York Post report

Because the Post has done an excellent job of summarizing the information that appears to have been suppressed, I am now going to quote from it verbatim:  ”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 3,000 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.

More from The New York Post

“As I [the author of the Post article, Paul Sperry] 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.

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 Sept. 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.”

Further confirmation

Think about it: “The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks”! This was just two days after 9/11 on 13 September 2001, which one would not have thought would be an occasion for celebration by cigars. But that is what happened and appears to complement reports that members of the Saudi royal family were flown from the US to Saudia Arabia that same day under FBI supervision.

The New York Times (27 March 2005), which I (Jim Fetzer) have come to regard as “The Langley Newsletter”, reported that

[N]ewly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.

The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.

The Saudi families, in Los Angeles and Orlando, requested the F.B.I. escorts because they said they were concerned for their safety in the wake of the attacks, and the F.B.I. – which was then beginning the biggest criminal investigation in its history – arranged to have agents escort them to their local airports, the documents show.

But F.B.I. officials reacted angrily, both internally and publicly, to the suggestion that any Saudis had received preferential treatment in leaving the country.

Of course, there is nothing surprising about FBI officials “reating angrily” when they are caught with their pants down. More recently, The Mail (UK) published, “Why were Saudi royals with ‘links to 9/11′ allowed to leave the US without being quizzed by the FBI?” (14 March 2012) and reported:

On the day of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, there were two members of the Saudi Royal family on American soil.

One, Prince Ahmed bin Salman, a media baron with vast wealth and a passion for racing expensive horses, was in Lexington Kentucky for the annual sale of thoroughbred yearlings.

The second, Prince Sultan bin Fahd, was a 22-year-old royal living in Sarasota, Florida, and studying at the University of Tampa’s American Language Academy.

Both men, MSNBC reports, were later found to have troubling connections to the men who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001.

What does this imply about 9/11?

That the Bush family and the Saudi royal family–and the bin Laden family as well–were long associated through the Carlyle Group has long been known and qualifies as “old news”.  That Prince Bandar–also known as “Bandar Bush”–and George W. Bush shared cigars to commemorate the events of 9/11, however, will probably come as rather stunning.  And that the Joint Congressional Inquiry was excised to remove proof of Saudi involvement in sponsoring the alleged terrorist is despicable.

We have long known that 9/11 was brought to us complements of the CIA and the Mossad, as Preston James and I explained in “Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (14 August 2011) and further confirmed by Nicholas Kollerstrom in “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?” (22 August 2012). Additional proof has been supplied by Alan Sabrosky, Christopher Bollyn and “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world”.

But Preston and I did not really explore the Saudi Arabian dimension in that study, where the resurrection of this question in the context of the introduction of H.R. 428 deserves further elaboration.  Although The Post would not normally be reliable as a source for serious reporting on a serious subject, in this instance–because the author, Paul Sperry, is an expert on this subject, we have the benefit of  (what appears to be) reliable information.

Other recent studies have confirmed that none of the “officially designated” 9/11 aircraft actually crashed that day.  Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) were not even schedule to fly; and FAA Registration Records show that the planes used for Flight 93 (Shanksville) and Flight 175 (South Tower) were not formally de-registered (taken out of service) until 28 September 2005, which raise the questions, “How can planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11?”, and “How can planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?”

For proof, see:

Moreover, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have established that, while Flight 93 was in the air that day, it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had allegedly crashed on 9/11; and that Flight 175 was also in the air that day, but that it was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG  AFTER it had allegedly hit the South Tower. What this means is that none of the 9/11 aircraft crashed on 9/11, which implies that none of the passengers aboard them died in plane crashes that did not take place.

It also implies that there were no suicide hijackers aboard any of those planes that day, which means that Islamic terrorists did not cause them to crash.  Indeed, as David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004), makes his first point, a half-dozen of the alleged “suicide hijackers” turned up alive the day after 9/11.  How dumb are we, the America public supposed to be?  9/11 was a staged event, which was used to justify an unwarranted “War on Terror”!

The Saudis appear to have been participating in setting up the patsies, because the 19 Saudi Arabians who were named as 9/11 terrorist were just as much the patsies for those atrocities as was Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of JFK.  And from recent events abroad, we have seen Saudia Arabia increasingly flexing its political and financial muscles to benefit Israel and oppose a diplomatic solution to the non-existent nuclear weapons program in Iran.

Indeed, since 15 of the 19 alleged suicide terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq, would it not have made more sent to have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? We have been played for saps, “big time”, by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the Israelis and Saudi Arabia.  There proof is staring us in the face.  There is no more justification for withholding 28 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry than there is for regarding Saudia Arabia and Israel as allies of the United States.


Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Source

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.