But “We Can’t Afford to Irritate the Saudis” By Actually Looking Into Who Backed 9/11 … “Especially with Oil Prices Going Up Now”

Contrary to the official narrative, 9/11 was state-sponsored terror. The only question is which state sponsored it.

A 9/11 Commissioner and Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 say in sworn declarations that the Saudi government is linked to the 9/11 attacks.

This week, the Miami Herald provided more evidence of a Saudi link:

A Saudi family who “fled” their Sarasota area home weeks before 9/11 had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001,” according to newly released FBI records.

One partially declassified document, marked “secret,” lists three of those individuals and ties them to the Venice, Fla., flight school where suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi trained. Accomplice Ziad Jarrah took flying lessons at another school a block away.

Atta and al-Shehhi were at the controls of the jetliners that slammed into the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people. Jarrah was the hijacker-pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania.

The names, addresses and dates of birth of the three individuals tied to the flight school were blanked out before the records were released to BrowardBulldog.org amid ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation.

The information in the documents runs counter to previous FBI statements. It also adds to concerns raised by official investigations but never fully explored, that the full truth about Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 attacks has not yet been told.


The documents are the first released by the FBI about its once-secret probe in Sarasota. Information contained in the documents flatly contradicts prior statements by FBI agents in Miami and Tampa who have said the investigation found no evidence connecting the al-Hijjis to the hijackers or the 9/11 plot.

Concerned residents in the gated community of Prestancia tipped the FBI, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, to the al-Hijjis’ sudden departure in late August 2001. The family left behind three cars, clothes, furniture, diapers, toys, food and other items.

[A] counterterrorism officer and Prestancia’s former administrator, Larry Berberich, both said an analysis of gatehouse security records — log books and snapshots of license tags — had determined that vehicles either driven by or carrying several of the future hijackers had visited the al-Hijji home.

Phone records revealed similar, though indirect, ties to the hijackers, said the counterterrorism officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.


An April 16, 2002, FBI report says “repeated citizen calls” led to an inspection of the home by agents of the Southwest Florida Domestic Security Task Force.


That person and a second individual were said to be flight students at Huffman Aviation — the flight school at the Venice Municipal Airport attended by hijackers Atta and al-Shehhi.

The third person on the list “lived with flight students at Huffman Aviation” and was “arrested numerous times by the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office,” the report says.


A notice on the document indicates the censored information regarding the three individuals associated with the terrorist attacks is scheduled to remain classified for another 25 years — until March 14, 2038.


Al-Hijji, who following 9/11 worked for the Saudi oil company Aramco in England, could not be reached by phone or email last week. Aramco staff said there was no longer anyone by that name in the London office.


The FBI documents also disclose that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., queried Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller about the Sarasota investigation six days after its existence was disclosed in Broward Bulldog/Miami Herald story.


Similarly, Weich denied an assertion by then Sen. Bob Graham of Florida that the FBI had not turned over its Sarasota records to Congress. The bureau, he stated, made all of its records available and suggested they may have been overlooked by investigators.

The documents the FBI has released do not mention other known aspects of the Sarasota investigation, including information provided to the FBI by al-Hijji’s former friend, Wissam Hammoud.

Hammoud, 47, is a federal prisoner classified by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons as an “International Terrorist Associate.” He is serving a 21-year sentence for weapons violations and attempting to kill a federal agent and a witness in a previous case against him.

[S]hortly after his 2004 arrest, Hammoud told agents that al-Hijji considered Osama bin Laden a “hero,” may have known some of the hijackers, and once introduced Hammoud to fugitive al-Qaeda leader and ex-Miramar resident Adnan Shukrijumah.

When reached last year, al-Hijji acknowledged having known Hammoud well. He did not, however, respond to a question about Hammoud’s allegations and said Shukrijumah’s name did not “ring a bell.”


Other FBI documents about Sarasota are known to exist, but were not released, including a report Graham says he read last year but can’t discuss because it is classified.

The [Broward] Bulldog’s FOIA lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge William Zloch to order the FBI to produce all records of its Sarasota investigation, including the records seen by Graham.

The Daily Beast reported last year:

The FBI-led investigation in Sarasota reportedly focused on Saudi millionaire Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud. Their upscale home was owned by Anoud al-Hijji’s father, Esam Ghazzawi, an adviser to Prince Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the nephew of King Fahd.

An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

The 2 hijackers were Saudis. Indeed, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

The Daily Beast reported last year:

In San Diego, allegations of links between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers revolve around two enigmatic Saudi men: Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan, both of whom have long since left the United States.

Al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi government in civil aviation (a part of the Saudi defense department), and was alleged by many San Diego Muslims to be an agent for the Saudi government who reported on the activities of Saudi-born students living in Southern California.

In early 2000, al-Bayoumi invited two of the hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, to San Diego from Los Angeles. He told authorities he met the two men by chance when he sat next to them at a restaurant.

As Newsweek reported in 2002, al-Bayoumi’s invitation was extended on the same day that he visited the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles for a private meeting.

Al-Bayoumi arranged for the two future hijackers to live in an apartment near the San Diego Islamic Center mosque and paid $1,500 to cover their first two months of rent.

When asked not long after the 9/11 attacks about al-Bayoumi’s possible involvement, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, then the San Diego head of the FBI, told this reporter that there was no evidence al-Bayoumi played a role.

But a former top FBI official later told Newsweek, We firmly believed that [al-Bayoumi] had knowledge [of the 9/11 plot].”

After 9/11, al-Bayoumi was detained by New Scotland Yard while living in the U.K. Gore said the FBI sent agents to London to interview him, but he was released a week later and allowed to return to Saudi Arabia.

Newsweek reported that classified sections of the congressional 9/11 inquiry indicated that the Saudi Embassy in London pushed for al-Bayoumi’s release.

Where is al-Bayoumi now? “I can’t say too much, but what I can tell you is that he is still alive and living in Saudi Arabia,” says Graham.

As for Basnan, whom Graham calls “Bayoumi’s successor,” Newsweek reported that he received monthly checks for several years totaling as much as $73,000 from the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, and his wife, Princess Haifa Faisal.

The checks were sent because Basnan’s wife, Majeda Dweikat, needed thyroid surgery, Newsweek and other media outlets reported. But Dweikat inexplicably signed many of the checks over to al-Bayoumi’s wife, Manal Bajadr. This money allegedly made its way into the hands of hijackers Almihdhar and Alhazmi, according to the congressional report.

At a post-9/11 gathering in San Diego, Basnan allegedly called the attack “a wonderful, glorious day” and celebrated the hijackers’ “heroism,” a law-enforcement official told Newsweek.

Despite all this, he was ultimately allowed to return to Saudi Arabia ….

Another man who might have helped investigators get to the bottom of this mystery is Abdussattar Shaikh, a longtime FBI asset in San Diego who was friends with al-Bayoumi and invited two of the San Diego-based hijackers to live in his home.

However, Shaikh was not allowed by the FBI or the Bush administration to testify before the 9/11 Commission or the JICI.

“For me, that was the low point of the [JICI] investigation,” says Graham. “Bayoumi introduced the hijackers to Shaikh, who clearly knew a lot, but the FBI, who had Shaikh in protective custody, seemed to care more about protecting their asset than allowing us to find out what he knew about 9/11.”

During roughly the same period after the 9/11 attacks, San Diego FBI agent Steven Butler alerted his superiors about a flow of money from Saudi government officials that had made its way into the hands of two of the San Diego-based hijackers, according to U.S. News & World Report. But the warning was ignored.

“Butler is claiming that people [in the FBI] didn’t follow up,” a congressional source told U.S. News & World Report. Another congressional source told U.S. News: “Butler saw a pattern, a trail, and he told his supervisors, but it ended there.”

The investigation into the Saudi government’s alleged connections to the hijackers seemed to end there. Arguably the greatest crime mystery of our time has become a cold case.


[The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham] believes the Bush administration protected the Saudis during the 9/11 inquiry [and] wonders why the Obama administration hasn’t reopened the investigation and sought answers.

“Perhaps they feel that we can’t afford to irritate the Saudis, especially with oil prices going up now,” he says. “I don’t know. Someday, I do believe we will get to the bottom of 9/11 and the Saudi government connections.”

Indeed, a U.S. congressman for 6 years, who is now a talking head on MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) says that – even if the Saudi government backed the 9/11 attacks – Saudi oil is too important to do anything about it:

Category: Think Tank, War/Defense

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

19 Responses to “FBI Report Implicates Saudi Government in 9/11”

  1. Expat says:

    And this just in. In an ironic twist, reports from dozens of national security agencies around the world have linked illegal war, assassination, torture, killing, imprisonment, and acts of terror to the United States government. Sources at these agencies have said they have known to the link for hundreds of years in some cases but have not acted because the US buys a lot of oil and has really big guns.

    The greater irony is that Iraq was about hegemony and oil. Had we simply invaded Saudi after 9/11 instead of Afghanistan, we would have solved all our problems.

    Instead of overthrowing the brutal dictatorship in Iraq, we should have done away with the multiple brutal dictatorships to the south. It certainly would have been an easier war and and easier occupation. Who could imagine Saudi “insurgents”? It’s hard to plant a roadside IED from Gstaad, Paris, or London.

    • 873450 says:

      They can barely fly jets we sell them.

      But this?
      “Sources at these agencies have said they have known to the link for hundreds of years in some cases but have not acted because the US buys a lot of oil and has really big guns.” ???

      • Expat says:

        Okay, bad typing and bad grammar, but the principle remains the same. The US has been carrying out acts of terrorism for two hundred years all around the globe. US spies and military capers were de jour long before the creation the of the OSS and the CIA. We got away with it because we had big guns and were a major economic power.

  2. Clif Brown says:

    Yes, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. The Saudi government, however, was very worried about Osama bin Laden because of his tirades against them and his support for anti-government extremists operating in Saudi Arabia. Before we get carried away with supposed Saudi government connections to 9/11, we should ask what motivation would they have to upset a pretty cozy relationship with the U.S. that had brought them fabulous wealth and so many advanced weapons and training to protect themselves?

    Far more attention should be given to the connection of the Pakistani military with bin Laden, the Taliban, and anti-American extremism (often funded with American money funneled through the Pakistani government). Read Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars” and Peter Tomsen’s “The Wars of Afghanistan”, a far better way, though demanding of time and attention, to become informed than by watching talking heads.

    • Expat says:

      Yes, and if you read Ghost Wars, you will learn that the Saudi’s matched every dollar we gave. The Saudis were happy to keep Bin Laden out of Saudi. They were worried about their own asses, not ours. Bin Laden was threatening the Saudi monarchy and wanted to take away their money, power, cocaine, Krug, and imported Russian hookers. By financing his foreign adventures, they could divert his attention away from the kingdom.

    • Marc P says:

      Clif, you ask “what motivation would they have to upset a pretty cozy relationship with the U.S.”?

      I can make a guess. The Saudi princes don’t want to upset the cozy relationship. They appear to have done their best to make it look like this was done by rogue elements unconnected to the King. Their motivation? Maybe it was money. In 2000 the royal family was running out of money. The family expands exponentially in number, and their lifestyles expand exponentially also. There simply wasn’t enough money to go around. What has changed? Oil went from $30 to $147 to $90. The only thing better for the royal family would be for the US/Israel/UK to attack Iran and drive the price up further.

  3. sakhalinsk says:

    So, yes, as we’ve known for years, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. That they had Saudi connections, even highly placed within the Al-Saud monarchy, is not a surprise, but it does not make the attack State Sponsored.

    Saudi Arabia is very complex country. Four elements are key
    - Oil, which is of course utterly critical to modern existence and unbelievably lucrative for the Princes
    - The tribal & religious nature of Saudi “politics” – this is not a democracy
    - The Al-Saud absolute monarchy, whose main motivation is simply to stay in power. It’s a big “family”, there are around 7000 princes, with around 200 male descendants of King Aziz.
    - Corruption – it’s endemic.

    For years the extended royal family have thrown that oil money around, trying to balance tribal and religious tensions, walking that fine line between keeping the masses happy and unbalanced enough such that no group poses a threat to the Al-Sauds. A lot of the oil wealth has flowed into madrasa and extremest teaching, arguably polarising some already extreme Wahabi views.

    The Al-Saud’s have quite a challenge. What you have ended up with is a country run by an extremely wealthy & elite family (often seen as western & woefully decadent), with a growing & youthful population brought up on a diet of fundamentalist teaching. Unemployment is a growing issue and the Al-Saud’s have a low level internal insurgency with Wahabi Sunni extremists, a restive Shi-ite minority in the eastern province (around the oilfields), and regional opponents in the west (Hejaz, around Mecca) and southwest (the mountains of Asir, bordering Yemen).

    Saudi Arabia is, and has always been, a powderkeg.

    The extremists behind 9/11 hate the fact that Saudi Royal Family is close to the west. They are as much an enemy to the Al Sauds as to us. That’s the whole point. Al-Qaeda came about because of American troops on Arabian soil, troops there because the Al Saud’s were terrified Saddam might invade them after Kuwait during the 1st gulf war, and they’re doubly terrified of Iran, and always have been.

    The Sunni extremests would much rather turn over the royal family, close the doors to the country, and turn off the oil taps. That’s the whole point. They’d love you to think that this was about the Al Saud’s. The more tension between the west and the Royal Family the better.

    • TrainStation says:

      You are right, Saudi Arabia is very complicated.

      To add to your comment, Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and Medinah as referred to in Osama bin Laden’s fatwa (holy decree) of 1996, “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”. Mecca and Medinah are the two holiest cities in the moslem world. All Muslims are to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at some point in their lives and like the Saudis they also hate the royal family.

      Another stability complication is that royal family members in power are in their 80′s and late 70′s. It will be a mess when power is transferred to the next generation. The power struggle will probably be bloody, similar to the King Faisal days.

  4. farmera1 says:

    The invasion of Iraq always amazed me. Even though the Saudi’s were much more involved since some 11 of 13 of the hijackers were from Saudis. It was on the same level as we were attacked Mexican’s let’s invade Canada. The lead up to the invasion of Iraq followed a carefully scripted pattern.

    -Generating Fear
    -Patriotism and attacking those opposed as unpatriotic

    I recall a poll showing 78% of the US population believed Iraq was behind 911, just before we invaded Iraq. Although as a common citizen I could find no evidence that supported Iraq as the driver behind the 911 attacks. Just the contrary, all available evidence said Iraq had nothing to do with the invasion. All carefully spun propaganda, and it worked just as Goering said it would at his Nuremberg trial
    when he said the people don’t want war they can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. You just have to make people feel fearful and attack anyone opposed as unpatriotic. Worked perfectly.


  5. fresno dan says:

    measured, informed, and helpful analysis.
    We have allied ourselves with a feudal form of government that is repressive and corrupt – astounding when you considered our supposed values…(Oh, wait! Our values are allowing elites to make as much corrupt money as possible….)

    • fresno dan says:

      My comments at 8:02 was meant as a reply to Sakhalinsk (I would as “perspective” as well)
      I don’t know why the “reply” feature didn’t work

  6. Expat says:

    Well, it was never proved that the Afghani “government” supported or sponsored Bin Laden so I don’t see why we had to depose them.

  7. Mike in Nola says:

    A good read that covers some of the politics of the situation is Osama bin Laden by Michael Scheuer.

    It also debunks some of the propaganda put out by the Saudi’s to distance themselves from Osama. It was written before Osama’s death. With respect to the Saudi’s, I think his position is that the Saudi’s certainly supported him before he decided that that corrupt Saudi regime needed reforming and Osama was not acting for them in 9/11 but was simply a personality you could expect to arise from Saudi culture.

  8. DeDude says:

    So a highjacker was someones friend who knows an unckle who’s brother is a high ranking Sauidi official. This is classic weak conspiracy theory piece that is grasping at straws to make connections that either are not there, or not showing anthing significant if they were. You can connect Kevin Bacon to anybody in 5 links. You can also connect any Saudi to their 7000 member royal family in 3 links. Question is what type of connection and what that connection means. The comments above are much more informative about the Saudi powers vs. Osama links and relations.

  9. AtlasRocked says:

    140 Saudi nationals left the US while flights were grounded. The 9/11 report still redacts the information about this, I read.

    Very disturbing. What would make both our major parties go quiet on this? It has to be something incredibly disturbing. If it were nothing to be concerned about, the full 9/11 report should be released.

  10. beaufou says:

    People in France are slowly waking up to the fact that Muammar Gaddafi financed Sarkozy’s campaign in 2007. We have serious issues with our mediocre elites on both sides of the Atlantic, very deep, serious issues.

  11. Joe Friday says:

    BR: “Indeed, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    * One of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which was crashed into one of the towers, was identified by the FBI as Waleed al-Shehri, and claimed to be a college graduate from Florida whose father was a Saudi diplomat. That diplomat later told a Saudi Arabian newspaper that his son was still very much alive and still working as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines.

    * One of the hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which was crashed into one of the towers, was identified by the FBI as Abdulaziz al-Omari. He was reported by the Rocky Mountain News to have the same name as a graduate student of the University of Colorado. In 1995 that Colorado student had reported a theft in his apartment; among the items stolen was his passport. That man did not resemble a photograph of the same named hijacker.

    * One of the hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon, was identified by the FBI as Nawaf al-Hazmi. The New York Department of Motor Vehicles has stated that his New York driver’s license which had been found, had never been issued.

    * One of the hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which was crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania, was identified by the FBI as Saeed al-Ghamdi. His identification utilized the Social Security number of a Vermont woman who had been dead since 1965.

    * Social Security officials have stated that an additional six of the other nineteen hijackers were using Social Security numbers and identity cards belonging to other people.

  12. Willy2 says:

    According to my info:
    1. The main target of Osama Bin Laden was to “get rid” of the saudi government.
    2. In order to weaken the saudi government Osama had to trick the US in invading Afghanistan. and this invasion would let bleed the US (financially) dry.
    3. A number of saudi royals wanted to get rid of thieir king and supported Osama with millions of USDs.