28 pages alleged Saudi ties to 9/11 to be released Friday

[seemslikeadream]

The Long-Hidden Saudi-9/11 Trail
July 16, 2016

The U.S. government and mainstream media are playing down the long-hidden 9/11 chapter on official Saudi connections to Al Qaeda’s hijackers, hoping most Americans won’t read it themselves, as 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser observes.

By Kristen Breitweiser

First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you hear any member of our government say the newly released 29-page chapter from the congressional 9/11 report contains no smoking gun — THEY ARE LYING.

Our government’s relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is no different than an addict’s relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat and steal to feed his vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat and steal to continue their dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA — a relationship that is rotting this nation and its leaders from the inside out.


When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan is not a man living in reality — he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi vice.

When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies — under oath — that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and protects only her Saudi vice.

Read the 29 pages yourself and know the facts. Do not let any person in our government deny the damning reality of the 29 pages. And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003. President George W. Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated.

President Bush has deep ties to the KSA and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq — not Saudi Arabia. So, a 29-page chapter that said “Saudi” and “Bandar” instead of “Hussein” and “Iraq” was a huge problem for President Bush. (The solution was to hide the information for 13 years.)

It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged that much of the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators uncovered was unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry’s investigative hands.

To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry’s investigation. And for the exception of the 29 pages, they succeeded in their effort.

The Central Saudi Role

Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry’s Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for more than 13 years — not for matters of genuine national security — but for matters of convenience, embarrassment and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime.

Neither Director of National Intelligence James Clapper nor President Barack Obama wants to release a statement about that. The only thing Clapper and Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the subsequent investigation of the 9/11 Commission.

This punt by President Obama is repulsive. His deference to the 9/11 Commission — which admitted that it was unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks — reveals Obama’s utter lack of interest, engagement or support of the 9/11 families.

Frankly, this behavior re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held responsible.

Most alarmingly, Obama’s silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle and ignore the truth leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our “ally” – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically follow up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat — the investigator was fired.

In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission’s entire section regarding the Saudis and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John Lehman, Bob Kerrey and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang his or her hat on the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report when Commissioners themselves have admitted that the Saudis were not fully investigated is absurd and disgraceful.

Ignored Evidence

For example, one glaring piece of information not mentioned in either the 9/11 Commission or the Joint Inquiry’s 29 pages is the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI report and a CIA report that are now declassified.

Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy — a Saudi Consulate official — helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy escorted bin Attash — a known Al Qaeda operative — through INS and Customs at Los Angeles International Airport evading security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI report.

Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and 17 U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated?

Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11 attacks — more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened. But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17 sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.

I’m sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all consider Thumairy’s operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar and Hazmi as within the threshold of being an “ally” of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would not.

I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice, Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey.

For an Administration looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice — doing it on Friday when Congress was leaving for their two-month summer recess was probably the best day anyone could have imagined.

The Long Stonewall

But the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that of other citizens, I now know better. For 15 long years, I have fought to get information regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government.

I have fought, pleaded and begged for the truth, transparency, justice and accountability because my husband and 3,000 others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but block, thwart, impede and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability and justice.

Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth written on the plain paper of the 29 pages. Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts — telling you to deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.

Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San Diego. They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the 29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida — 80,000 documents that not the 9/11 Commission, not the Joint Inquiry, not the White House (from Clinton to Bush to Obama), and not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia want us to know about.

More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been covering up that fact for 15 years — even to this very day. And that is a crime.

Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both Democratic and Republican administrations. Blame President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama — as well as, all of their officials and appointees.

They are ALL to blame — before and after the fact — for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11 attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming clean with the American public for 15 years.

[seemslikeadream]

but ...but....but Justin did you forget about building 7?

The Saudis Did 9/11
That's what the 28 pages tell us

by Justin Raimondo, July 18, 2016

News reports about the recently released 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks are typically dismissive: this is nothing new, it’s just circumstantial evidence, and there’s no “smoking gun.” Yet given what the report actually says – and these news accounts are remarkably sparse when it comes to verbatim quotes – it’s hard to fathom what would constitute a smoking gun.

To begin with, let’s start with what’s not in these pages: there are numerous redactions. And they are rather odd. When one expects to read the words “CIA” or “FBI,” instead we get a blacked-out word. Entire paragraphs are redacted – often at crucial points. So it’s reasonable to assume that, if there is a smoking gun, it’s contained in the portions we’re not allowed to see. Presumably the members of Congress with access to the document prior to its release who have been telling us that it changes their entire conception of the 9/11 attacks – and our relationship with the Saudis – read the unredacted version. Which points to the conclusion that the omissions left out crucial information – perhaps including the vaunted smoking gun.

In any case, what we have access to makes more than just a substantial case: it shows that the Saudi government – including top officials, such as then Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and other members of the royal family – financed and actively aided the hijackers prior to September 11, 2001.

Support for at least two of the hijackers when they arrived in the US was extended by three key individuals:

Omar al-Bayoumi – Bayoumi was clearly a Saudi intelligence agent: the FBI all but identifies him as such. His salary was paid for by companies directly owned and operated by the Saudi government, although he apparently rarely showed up for “work.” He was directly subsidized by the wife of then Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, and these subsidies were substantially increased when the hijackers arrived in the US. It was Bayoumi who hovered over two of the hijackers – Nawaf al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Midhar – as soon as they arrived in the United States. He got them an apartment, co-signed the rental agreement, chauffeured them around – and helped them obtain information on flight schools.

Osama Bassnan – This individual, who, according to the report, has “many ties to the Saudi government,” boasted to an informant that he did more for the two hijackers than Bayoumi. He was certainly in a position to do so, since he lived directly across the street from them in San Diego. The FBI characterized him as “an extremist and supporter of Osama bin Laden”: like Bayoumi, his longtime associate – with whom he was in constant communication at the time of the hijackers’ American sojourn – Bassnan was subsidized by the Saudi royal family, and specifically Prince Bandar and his wife. A search of Basnan’s apartment turned up indications that he had cashiers checks amounting to $574,000. Bandar’s wife’s account had a standing arrangement to send monthly checks to Basan’s wife for “nursing services.” There is no evidence that such services were ever performed. The suppressed 28 pages cite direct payments from Prince Bandar to Basnan:

“On at least one occasion, Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. Accordion to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $515,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar She also received one additional check froth Bandar’s wife, which she cashed on January 8,1998 for 510,000.”

Shayk Fahah al-Thumairy – He was a diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and imam of the King Fahad mosque, which is a focal point of Muslim-Saudi activity in the area. US intelligence avers that “initial indications are that al-Thumairy may have had a physical or financial connection to al-Hamzi and al-Midhar.” Both attended the King Fahad mosque. Thumairy was interviewed by US law enforcement after fleeing to Saudi Arabia, and denied having any contact with the two hijackers – in spite of evidence that he was in telephonic contact with them. This, he asserted, was an attempt to “smear” him.
The two hijackers had extensive contacts with Saudi naval officers in the United States, according to telephone records. And when Abu Zubaydah, one of the 9/11 conspirators, was captured in Pakistan, they found the phone number of a Colorado company that managed “the affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador.” Prince Bandar is practically the star of the suppressed 28 pages – no wonder the Bush administration, which had close ties to him, fought so hard to keep this secret.

The 28 pages also reveal that an individual – name redacted – associated with al-Qaeda and the hijackers sneaked into the US, avoiding Customs agents and the INS due to the fact that he was traveling with a member of the Saudi royal family. We are also told that “Another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family, [redacted], is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations and reportedly was checking security at the United States’ southwest border in 1999 and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States.”

The Saudi government’s financial and operational ties to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers are myriad, and largely substantiated. Furthermore, although some of these links as detailed in the 28 pages are tentative, it’s important to remember that this report was written in 2002, and that the intelligence community was strongly admonished to follow up because lawmakers deemed the lack of investigation into the Saudi connection “unacceptable.” So what did they find out in the fourteen years after that admonition was delivered? Inquiring minds want to know….

Prince Bandar went on to become head of Saudi intelligence: his personal relationship with the Bush family is well-known, and his access to US government officials – and his powerful influence in Washington – makes his starring role in the nurturing of the two hijackers into a gun that, while not quite smoking, is exuding vapors of a highly suggestive nature.

“Circumstantial evidence”? Perhaps – but people have been convicted of murder on the basis of such evidence, and, in this case, there is such a preponderance of evidence that a guilty verdict is unavoidable.

It would not be stretching the evidence to bluntly state that the suppressed 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry report on the 9/11 terrorist attacks places agents of the Saudi government at the epicenter of the plot. In short, there’s no two ways about it: the Saudis did 9/11.

Why did our government cover up this shocking evidence for so long?

The reason is because they had no desire to retaliate against the real perpetrators of 9/11. Instead, as we now know, they were determined to pin the blame on Saddam Hussein: indeed, the Bush administration pressed this talking point relentlessly, until it was forced to backtrack. We attacked Iraq, in the words of neocon grise eminence and top Bush administration official Paul Wolfowitz, because it was “doable.” A years long neoconservative campaign to target Iraq gained new impetus in the wake of 9/11, and the administration and its journalistic camarilla pushed the lie that Iraq was behind the attack. The evidence that the Saudis were involved had to be suppressed – because the Bush administration’s war plans depended on it.

Now that we know the truth, what do we do about it?

To begin with, if any other government had connections to a terrorist attack on the US of this nature, their capital would’ve been a smoking ruin. I’m not suggesting we do that, but at the very least the Saudis must be made to pay a high price for their complicity, starting with a moratorium on all US aid and arms sales to the Kingdom. We imposed trade sanctions on Russia for far less. Cutting off the Saudis from the US banking system should put a crimp in their extensive international network of terror-financing and money-laundering. And I know it’s too much to expect a public statement from our President pointing out that a US “ally” aided and abetted those who murdered over 3,000 people on 9/11, but I can dream, can’t I?

The Saudis aren’t our allies: as the 28 pages make all too clear, they are our deadly enemies. And they ought to be treated as such.

[Harvey]

Alternative thread title: 28 Pages Later.

[seemslikeadream]

Why were Saudis “bulletproof” even AFTER the 9/11 Attack?
Posted on July 16, 2016 by Daniel Hopsicker
The first hugely shocking revelation in the 28-page secret chapter of the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee Inquiry into the 9/11 attack occurs less than half-way down the very first page, and raises the chief question arising out of the release.

The story of the 9/11 attack is a story of Saudis in Florida. But the until-now classified pages report show that fully one year after the attack the CIA and FBI remained inexplicably uncomfortable with the essential fact of any real 9/11 investigation: that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

gettyimages-157557967


“This gap in U.S. intelligence coverage is unacceptable”

12

As the report states, the “gap” in U.S. intelligence is unacceptable. But it is also—and more importantly—inexplicable.

newcorruptionThe big question is not whether the pages “prove” or “disprove” Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attack, but what —absent massive bribery—explains what made the Saudis “bulletproof” from investigation for so long, even after the attack?

The Joint Intelligence Committee, which fielded precisely zero investigators of their own, was easily able to discern—just by reading documents submitted by the two agencies —that the terrorist hijackers were in regular touch with representatives from the Saudi Government while they were in the U.S.

Why was the U.S. Intelligence Community—funded more fulsomely than any endeavor in human history—unable or unwilling to inform the American people of this fact?



But first: credit where credit is due

empty hallAfter a 13-year wait, the longed-for release of the 28 pages occurred in Washington D.C. on a Friday afternoon, during the middle of summer, in an election year, when a bowling ball rolled through the halls of the Capital stands little chance of hitting anyone.

Moreover the release was sandwiched between a major terrorist attack in France, and a military coup in Turkey. It was breaking news for all of 15 minutes.

Communist honcho Vladimir Lenin once said, “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” But this was ridiculous.

Even before setting eyes on the forbidden pages, what was awesomely obvious was an efficient public relations juggernaut’s ability to successfully obscure, disguise, mask, bury, and keep secret pretty much whatever—no matter how long the build-up—it prefers not become widely known.

PsyOpsAnd while there presumably remain many equally-explosive revelations about 9/11 still out there, it is this fact—more than any other—which the government of the United States has been at pains to suppress, misrepresent, misstate, conceal and keep under wraps.

The question is why? What gave the Saudis so much juice? While the answer may seem obvious to the more cynical among us, what’s really important is the question is not even being asked.

It’s amazing how much of the information in the just-released secret 28 pages I published in several stories fully ten years ago.



“Not our job, boss”

01WEB_Graham041216_750x525_17034347_8colBefore Americans get their hopes up that Senator Bob Graham’s Joint Intelligence Committee was the bright shining knight the American people have long been waiting for, their report makes a point of immediately going on to disclaim any ambition or interest in ferreting out any evidence the FBI or the CIA hasn’t laid before them.

3

Why might this be?



Bob Graham’s big secret: Mum’s the word on “Muppet”

shaikhs%20home21Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, the co-chairman of the congressional inquiry who pushed hard for the last chapter of the inquiry’s report to be released, deserves credit for his forthright statements that the hijackers had an extensive Saudi support system while they were in the United States.

But Graham’s “lay it all out attitude” doesn’t extend far beyond that. Take his silence on “Muppet,” the code name for Dr. Abdussattar Shaikh, whom Graham himself once called “the “best chance to uncover the Sept. 11 plot before it happened.”

Yet there is only one reference to “Muppet” in the secret 28 pages.

muppet

abdussattar_shaikh

Of the people who had contact with the hijackers in San Diego, no one was closer to them than Abdussattar Shaikh.History Commons said about Shaikh: “Despite much scrutiny after 9/11, little information will emerge on Shaikh’s background or why he came to the FBI’s notice.”

In newspaper reports, he was described as “a gregarious retired educator who has lived for years in San Diego.” He was identified in wire reports as “a retired professor of English at San Diego State,” and “Vice President for International Projects at American Commonwealth University.”



Any guess about why none of this was ever reported?

1attaYet a brief trip to San Diego was all it took to discover that Shaikh was nothing of the kind. Every single detail in the biography of Abdussattar Shaikh was a lie. He never taught at San Diego State; has never been a Professor of English anywhere.

He has a phony PhD purchased from a bogus diploma mill run by people with U.S. military and intelligence connections; and the “University” where he was supposed to be “Vice President or International Projects” does not, in fact, exist.

usiu_logo2Also his real name is not Abdussattar Shaikh but “Abdussattar Chhipa.” Or, as the FBI apparently called him, “Muppet.“ Muppet was a paid informant in counter-terrorism—of all things—before 9/11, although he supposedly never told his FBI handlers in San Diego of the two terrorist he was harboring in his home.

Much later, while Graham, after retiring from the Senate, was in Sarasota flogging his fictional book about the 9/11 attack , I confronted him with what I’d learned about Muppet. I thought he’d be grateful for the knowledge. He had, after all, attempted to subpoena Muppet to appear before the 9/11 Committee, but the FBI had refused to deliver it to him.

poseEarlier, author Anthony Summers, who was then in my debt because i’d spent a month showing him around Venice and introducing him to original sources which he somehow completely failed to mention a word about in his book “The Eleventh Day,” solemnly promised to convey to Graham what I’d discovered about Shaik when they met.

Yet in person Graham denied knowing anything about the information I’d learned about Shaikh, which made either him or Anthony Summers a more accomplished liar than one usually encounters.

“Bought off is bought off. Don’t say it can’t happen here.”

boughtoff

QUESTION: If the Saudis could buy off the Jordanians, who else might they be able to successfully bribe?

ANSWER: See my next story on the 28-page report MONDAY.

[tapitsbo]

"we trusted the saudis. without them we would have been safe"

-believed nobody ever

[NeonLX]

Wow. History sure recedes quickly. "Everything changed" on 9/11/2001. But nobody cares how and why it changed.

Hey, didjoo know that Melanoma Drumpf's speech was plagiarized from an earlier speech made by Miss Shell Obomb'em? I wonder whose speech was plagiarized for Willie Robertson's oratory?

[seemslikeadream]

Wow. History sure recedes quickly. "Everything changed" on 9/11/2001. But nobody cares how and why it changed.

Hey, didjoo know that Melanoma Drumpf's speech was plagiarized from an earlier speech made by Miss Shell Obomb'em? I wonder whose speech was plagiarized for Willie Robertson's oratory?

Daffy Duck's

[tapitsbo]

People in the current information climate aren't going to buy the scapegoating of the Saudis, who abhorrent as they are will go down in spectacularly hectic fashion endangering the rest of the world.

Americans are going to be very happy to know more about domestic plotters in high echelons whose security has gradually unravelled...

They will need to turn off the internet to keep a lid on everything, people are waking up too fast

[backtoiam]

Yes tapitsbo it is quite a misfit, is it not?

Some of us have been living in the "shade" and watching the abyss so long we believe that many others can also see the dark. Some of the walking awake actually think the rest of the population has "woken up" and won't tolerate what is happening. It ain't so.

Do a test. Quizz your friends. Quizz strangers. Get off the internet among sheep and ask questions.

You will find that they are still fast asleep and look at you like you are crazy if you attempt to talk about this. One of the fallacies us internet junkies suffer from is the belief that "many others" have also woken up. They have not. They are fast asleep.

Test it. You will get looked at like you are crazy. I keep this shit to myself. I'm not heading into the street to wake up zombies. Not gonna happen. I'm staying tucked in my cave and watch it all go by.

Or in your case a yurt, which I think is cool as hell.

[backtoiam]

I can't get no satisfaction. I think that that is the burr under the saddle that keeps the horse going. When an oyster gets a grain of sand in it's shell it irritates the oyster enough to create a pearl around that grain of sand so that it makes a smooth surface to give the oyster comfort. That pearl, created from much irritation to that one particular oyster, becomes valuable to all that come into contact with it. My goal is to get that grain of sand out of my shell and enjoy the pearl. But if that happens I suppose it would be my death. Right?


https://youtu.be/nrIPxlFzDi0

[tapitsbo]

That might be so in some areas btia. In many, the attitude is different. In parts of Europe the mainstream entertained the idea that, for instance, American officials plotted 9/11.


When I talk to especially those especially those slightly younger than me many of them have a good awareness of these topics. They can see that the incumbents in many countries, have completely compromised the foundations of their legitimacy.

New generations aren't watching TV and they are slowly getting ready for the sorts of changes we have recently.seen in Turkey, although coming from a different ditection of course. It may be scary but so are the alternatives.