US Cover Up of Saudi Involvement in 9/11 Explained

4
Share

911-1
The king of Saudi Arabia is threatening to pull $750 billion in assets in the US if Congress passes a bill making its government liable for 9/11-related lawsuits. Obama plans to meet with the king to soothe the situation over. At the same time, there is a question over whether the “28 pages” tying the Saudi government to 9/11 will be released.

There has long been a cover up.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky described the 28 pages as “shocking” and said, “I had to stop every couple pages and…try to rearrange my understanding of history. It challenges you to rethink everything.”

The effort to release the pages is bipartisan and the congressmen who have seen them say there is no reason to keep them classified except to keep the information from the public.

To digress briefly, one of the troublesome questions that persists is why, after having allowed these terrorists in on tourist and business visas with one having come in on a student visa, why have no safeguards been put in place.

Independent government reports, including an April 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office, raises serious concerns about the tracking of people on visas. Fifteen years have passed and we have done nothing.

Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon was here on a student visa and never attended school and overstayed his visa.

Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers failed to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six were interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US, according to an ABC news report a year after the attack. Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened, the AP reported in 2002.

There is also evidence that four of the terrorists including Mohamed Atta were known to the US government but were allowed to remain in the US.

Protecting our alliance with the oil-rich Saudis meant co-conspirators were not held to account. Members of the bin Laden family and other prominent Saudis were allowed to leave soon after.

Paul Sperry, a former Hoover Institution media fellow, interviewed agents at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in DC, Florida, and San Diego and the agents and police detectives who investigated said all roads led to the Saudi Embassy in DC and their consulate in LA.

They were not allowed to follow leads, several agents claimed. These sources say the “28 Pages” comprise “incontrovertible evidence” that there was official Saudi assistance in the 9/11 attacks.

Sperry writing for the New York Post:

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.

They didn’t investigate Bandar – he was protected.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” according to one former FBI agent. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

After Bush and Bandar, a friend of Bush’s, met at the White House, dozens of Saudi officials and a bin Laden terrorist family member were evacuated along with Bandar and the FBI was made to escort them instead of interviewing them. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis.

Soon after, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

One FBI agent said all local investigations led to the Saudis but they were told no subpoenas for departing Saudis suspects.

Saudis were hands-off said another agent.

Anwar al-Awalaki, the hijackers’ spiritual adviser, was detained at JFK airport in 2002 but was released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.”

The 9/11 Commission report ignored al-Awalaki and refused to declassify any information about Bandar, according to a member of the commission, John Lehman.

“They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman was quoted as saying in the Lehman book, “The Commission.”

Mr. Sperry has reported that 15 days before the 9/11 attack and after a six-week stay, Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi advisor to the nephew of then King Fahd, fled from their luxury home in Sarasota, Florida, leaving behind jewels, clothes, furniture, numerous cars, and even a refrigerator full of food, with no forwarding address.

The FBI admitted there was an investigation of the family but said it was a dead end. The FBI report, however, said the families had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

The FBI told the Review Commission that this communication was ‘poorly written’ and wholly unsubstantiated. When questioned later by others in the FBI, the special agent who wrote (it) was unable to provide any basis for the contents of the document or explain why he wrote it as he did.

The agent’s report was just one of many communications, however, and currently a judge is reviewing more than 80,000 documents of the 9/11 investigation from the Tampa office.

Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers.

“The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Graham said, adding, “I am speaking of the kingdom,” or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.

Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks — which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war by a foreign government, Sperry reported.

Did the US cover up Saudi involvement at the highest levels?

“Things that should have been done at the time were not done,” said Rep. Walter Jones, the North Carolina Republican who’s introduced a bill demanding Obama release the 28 pages. “I’m trying to give you an answer without being too explicit.”

A Saudi reformer with direct knowledge of embassy involvement is more forthcoming.

“We made an ally of a regime that helped sponsor the attacks,” said Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. “I mean, let’s face it.”

Another issue we might want to consider is that Saudi Arabia has funded many Wahhabi mosques in the US.

 

Share

4 COMMENTS

    • Good question. Afghanistan was to save the people from the Taliban and Iraq was allegedly – in part – for the same reason. Afghanistan did host many terror training camps but Iraq did not. Saddam was a bad guy who violated the UN agreements nine times and he claimed to have weapons of mass destruction. The reason given for going in was the weapons of mass destruction.

      Democrats wanted to go into Afghanistan and Republicans wanted to go into Iraq.

      Saddam did constantly menace the US interests and paid Palestinians to become suicide bombers.

      If that’s enough to go to war, it’s for others to decide.

Comments are closed.