9/11: Bush’s Guilt, And the ’28 Pages’

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

On Friday July15th, as the national newsmedia were either on vacation or preparing for the opening of the Trump National Convention on Monday the 18th, the long-awaited release of the ‘missing 28 pages’ from the U.S. Senate’s 9/11 report (“DECEMBER 2002: JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001”) occurred. The official title of this document is “PART FOUR — FINDING, DISCUSSION AND NARRATIVE REGARDING CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS”, and it constitutes pages 6-34 of a pdf. (Some writers mistakenly call it “29 pages.” [I correct that statement; Robert Parry just now pointed out to me, it really is 29 pages: all of the previous references to it as “the missing 28 pages” had gotten the count wrong. Thanks, Robert!])

It “was kept secret from the public on the orders of former President George W. Bush”, and remained secret under Bush’s successor Barack Obama, until that Friday night late in Obama’s Second Administration, right before a week of Republican National Convention news would be dominating the news (along with any racial incidents, which would be sure to distract the public even more from any indication of Bush’s guilt). The pdf was of a picture-file so as to be non-searchable by journalists and thus slow to interpret, and thus would impede press-coverage of it. The file was also of a very degraded picture of the pages, so as to make the reading of it even more uninviting and difficult. Well, that was a skillful news-release-and-coverup operation! The Federal Government had plenty of time to do this right, but they evidently had plenty of incentive to do it wrong. They’re not incompetent; the reasonable explanation is something worse than that. (After all: this information has been hidden from the public for all of the 13+ years since that report was published without the 29 pages at the end of 2002.)

A typical ‘news’ report about the matter was NBC’s, which was headlined “Secret 28 Pages of 9/11 Report Released, Hold No Proof of Saudi Link” and which ended: “American officials repeatedly have stated their conclusion: There was none.” That’s stenographic ‘journalism’, like (in 2002 and 2003) about ‘Saddam’s WMD’: it’s ‘journalism’ in which, whatever your government says, is simply reported, as being (or as if it were) the truth.

What these 29 long-suppressed pages revealed was well summarized by one succinct reader who wrote: “The Inquiry discloses that there is a very direct chain of evidence about financing and logistics … [that] goes from the Saudi Royal family (Amb. Bandar’s wife and Bandar’s checking account) and Saudi consulate employees (al Thumiari) to the agent handlers (Basnan and al Bayoumi) to some of the 9/11 hijackers (Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi).” In other words: Prince Bandar bin-Sultan al-Saud, known in Washington as “Bandar Bush” (for his closeness to the Bush family), and who served at that time as Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States, paid tens of thousands of dollars to Saudi Arabia’s “handlers” who were directing two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Also, one of Bandar’s subordinates at the Embassy, named al-Thumiari, was likewise paying the person who was paying and managing those two jihadists.

The report said: “FBI files suggest that al-Bayoumi provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. … According to an October 14, 2002 FBI document, al-Bayoumi has ‘extensive ties to the Saudi Government’. … According to the FBI, al-Bayoumi was in frequent contact with the Emir at the Ministry of Defense, responsible for air traffic control. … Al-Bayoumi was receiving money from the Saudi Ministry of Defense. … Al-Bayoumi was known to have access to large amounts of money from Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that he did not appear to hold a job. … Al-Bayoumi’s pay increased during the time that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the United States.”

Also, an FBI agent testified on 9 October 2002 regarding al-Bayoumi, and said Bayoumi: “acted like a Saudi intelligence officer, in my opinion. And if he was involved with the hijackers, which it looks like he was, if he signed leases, if he provided some sort of financing … then I would say that there’s a clear possibility that there might be a connection between Saudi intelligence and UBL [Usama bin Laden].”

Moreover: “The FBI has now confirmed that only Osama Bassnan’s wife received money directly from Prince Bandar’s wife, but that al-Bayoumi’s wife attempted to deposit three of the checks from Prince Bandar’s wife, which were payable to Bassnan’s wife, into her own accounts. … Bassnan was a very close associate of Omar al-Bayoumi’s and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi several times a day.”

Furthermore: “Bassnan’s wife received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa.”

And: “On at least one occasion, Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar … for $10,000. … FBI Executive Assistant Director D’Amuro commented on this financing: ‘I believe that we do have money going from Bandar’s wife, $2,000 a month up to about $64,000.’”

Also: “On March 28, 2002, U.S. and coalition forces retrieved the telephone book of Abu Zubayda, whom the U.S. Government has identified as a senior al-Qa’ida operational coordinator. According to an FBI document, ‘a review of toll records has linked [to] ASPCOL Corporation in Aspen, Colorado. … ASPCOL is the umbrella corporation that manages the affairs of the Colorado residence of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador. … The U.S. Government also located another Virginia number at an Usama bin Laden safehouse in Pakistan … [where a person was] interviewed by the FBI in June 2002. He could not explain why his number ended up at a safehouse in Pakistan, but stated that he regularly provides services to a couple who are personal assistants to Prince Bandar.”

This has to be seen in the context of George W. Bush’s very close and longstanding personal friendship with Prince Bandar, and also in the context of Bandar’s career.

Bandar has long been involved, both officially and unofficially, in the intelligence operations of the Saud family (which own Saudi Arabia). During October 2005 through January 2015, he served as secretary general of Saudi Arabia’s National Security Council, and he also was director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014. Furthermore the just-released report asserts:

“The FBI also received reports from individuals in the Muslim community alleging that Bassnan might be a Saudi intelligence agent. According to a CIA memo, Basnan reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi Government officials. He and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and his wife. … A CIA report also indicates that Bassnan traveled to Houston in 2002 and … that during that trip a member of the Saudi royal family provided Bassnan with a significant amount of cash. … FBI information indicates that Bassnan is an extremist and a supporter of Usama bin Laden.”

Regarding Shaykh al-Thumairy, he was “an accredited diplomat at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and one of the ‘imams’ at the King Fahd Mosque … built in 1998 from funding provided by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The mosque … is widely recognized for its anti-Western views.”

The 29 pages also include lots more, but those facts give at least some solid indications of the links that Prince Bandar had to 9/11.

And other FBI offices than in San Diego were basically not even covered in the 29 pages; this was a rush-job by a Senate Committee, and with enormous resistance from the White House, which did everything they could to block the investigators.

Furthermore: none of this information is as solid as the sworn court-testimony of the captured former bagman for al-Qaeda, their bookkeeper who personally collected each one of the million-dollar cash donations to the organization and named many donors, including Prince Bandar, as having been among the people from whom he picked up those suitcases full of cash. He said of their donations: “It was crucial. I mean, without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing.” The authors of the Senate investigation report, never got any wind of this, because that man was in a U.S. prison and held incommunicado until that court-case in October 2014. But it was virtually the entire Saud family — not merely Bandar — who funded 9/11.

So: we know that Bandar “Bush” was practically like a brother to George W. Bush, but what other indications do we have of GWB’s guilt in the planning of the 9/11 attacks?

First of all: if he wasn’t involved in the attack’s planning, then he was grossly incompetent and uncaring, to the point of criminal negilgence for the numerous attempts that the CIA had made to warn GWB that such at attack was being planned and would occur soon — that he simply ignored those warnings. Criminal negligence, however, isn’t the same as being a traitor. That’s far more serious, and it would entail Bush’s conscious desire for such an attack to occur. Such evidence does exist. Here it is:

Researcher Chris Whipple headlined at Politico, on 12 November 2015, “‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular’”, and he reported:

“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming.

By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.” “There were real plots being manifested,” Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. …

The crisis came to a head on July 10. The critical meeting that took place that day was first reported by Bob Woodward in 2006. Tenet also wrote about it in general terms in his 2007 memoir At the Center of the Storm.

But neither he nor Black has spoken about it publicly in such detail until now—or been so emphatic about how specific and pressing their warnings really were. Over the past eight months, in more than a hundred hours of interviews, my partners Jules and Gedeon Naudet and I talked with Tenet and the 11 other living former CIA directors for The Spymasters, a documentary set to air this month on Showtime.

The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called “the Blue Sky paper” to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat—“getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.” “And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)

Five days later, I wrote an article interpreting that, titled “Politico Reports Bush Knew 2001 Terror-Attack Was Imminent and Wanted It”. Readers here are referred to that, for the continuation of the case here.

For additional information on the bonding between the Saudi aristocracy and the U.S. aristocracy, see this and this. It’s important to understand in order to be able to understand why Obama helped to set up the 21 August 2013 Syrian sarin attack to be blamed on Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Russia. The U.S. is allied with the Saud family, against Russia; and Syria is allied with Russia and refuses to allow pipelines for gas from Qatar and oil from Saudi Arabia through Syria to replace gas and oil that Russia has been selling to the EU. (Like RFK Jr. properly headlined on 25 February 2016, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”. That’s why the Sauds want Assad dead.)


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • WillDippel

    Here is an explanation of Wahhabism, the Saudi version of Islam, and why it is so dangerous:


    What is particularly appalling is, that as Hillary Clinton put it, the United States regards Saudi Arabia as a “close and strategic partner in many of the critical issues facing our world today” given that it is the source of many of these critical issues.

    • Steve Sperdacion

      ultra conservative islam. just like ultra conservative Christianity is horrible.

      • Zap

        And the Saudi’s are building Wahhabi mosques all over Europe with the approval of the EU leadership. This insane pandering to these Islamist’s has infected every western government including the US and Canada. The CFR and the elite have big plans for this mob that seems obvious. This cannot be explained away by the fact we have a crypto Muslim in the WH because this is much more pervasive and organized than can be explained by the actions of a single leader.

  • Jason Walker

    actually pages 6-34, inclusive, totals 29 pages, not 28.

    • Eric Zuesse


      It’s 28 pages.

      Count them: pages 6 through 34. (Page 5 isn’t part of the missing 28 pages.)

      • Carl_Herman

        It’s 34 – 5 = 29 because you’re only taking away 5 pages (page 6 is included).

        Another way: since page 6 is our “page 1” that means we subtract 5, and back to 34 – 5.

        Another way: count on your fingers beginning with page 6 all the way to page 34 🙂

        • Eric Zuesse

          Jason Walker is correct! I was wrong! The ‘missing 28 pages’ was/is 29 pages! Thanks Jason! I’ve now corrected the article, after Robert Parry pointed out to me that you are right.

        • ahuxley

          I had to take off my socks and underwear and I still couldn’t get past 21…

        • It’s an old math trick, I have to do this a lot in computer programming: you subtract 1 from the lower number, THEN subtract: 6-1=5; 34-5=29. 34-6 is an invalid number. So many people don’t know this, if you do 34-6 you’re not including page 6. Very common mistake.

          Now that we’ve established it’s more important to talk about the # of pages rather than what’s ON THEM…………………LOL

      • ahuxley

        6 7 8 9 10 5
        11 12 13 14 15 5
        16 17 18 19 20 5
        21 22 23 24 25 5
        26 27 28 29 30 5
        31 32 33 34 4
        Sorry Eric, but Jason has you on this one.

        • ahuxley

          That didn’t come out as the original…
          The 5s and the 4 at the end of each line represent the number of pages.
          They add up to 29…

  • Kevin Dann

    How disappointing to find the astute and dedicated Eric Zuesse missing the forest for the trees. Given the immense body of evidence of Zionist Israeli/Mossad management and execution of the crimes of 9/11, this whole “28 pages” flap is easily unmasked as a red herring/limited hangout. It would be helpful to have an investigative report about the ties between Israeli and Saudi intelligence, rather than turning the much ballyhooed 28 pages into a screed about the clueless former President GW Bush.

    • Steve Sperdacion

      all the blacked out stuff is probably references to Israel. They run Saudi Arabia.

    • Agreed. This bit of “9/11 truth” is being trotted out right now to eclipse the events that will be unfolding in September. Wittingly or unwittingly, Eric Zuesse is participating in the 9/11 psyop. I am not.

      Please join me outside the World Trade Center PATH station on September 11, 2016, and together we can end the 9/11 myth.


  • strange, there is no mention of if the preplanted thermite in the world trade center.
    did that come from saudi arabia?

    • Zap

      Here you have evidence of a conspiracy that doesn’t require thermite or any of these other wild theories. Cant you run with a theory that fits the facts and satisfies Occams razor?

      • Eric Zuesse

        I just now filled in those details. Read my links, where you have any such questions. Then read the links in those articles. You shouldn’t be asking me, here.

        • cityspeak

          I agree with you as this article is focusing on the question of where did most or part of the funding come from to execute 9/11. It is essential to understand the motivations and the identity of the real culprits of this heinous crime.
          It is also very revealing to understand how and why the USA government made it a policy to obscure this information.

          Citizens would be much better off if after “being told the news” they started to ask themselves the following questions:

          Where is the money coming from for this operation, material support, strategic planning, etc?
          Who is benefiting from the consequences of these actions or claims?
          What policing government agency is “standing down” while rampant criminality is allowed to go forward unhindered?
          When the “incompetence or criminality is uncovered” what reprimands and penalties are applied to the responsible parties?
          What factual information is known which directly contradicts other unsubstantiated claims and renders “the narrative” completely nonsensical?

          Great work on filling us in on this aspect of 9/11.

    • Eric Zuesse

      You don’t read, like you didn’t read this: ““And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)”

      And you didn’t read this: “I wrote an article interpreting that, titled ‘Politico Reports Bush Knew 2001 Terror-Attack Was Imminent and Wanted It’. Readers here are referred to that, for the continuation of the case here.”

      Reading an online article that links to its sources, means to click onto any link where you question the article’s interpretation of events.

      If you had done that, you would know that the evidence is strong that Bush had been informed by Bandar that his attack would come soon, and that the reason the White House “don’t want the clock to start ticking” in the official record (such as in the CIA’s communications to him at that time) is that Bush already was aware that a horrific attack using civilian planes was going to be happening soon, and he didn’t want anyone other than himself and Cheney and Rice to know it; he especially didn’t want anyone in the CIA to be able to say they had told him about it in advance. Bush’s official position was that he knew nothing about the matter in advance; he needed that “plausible deniability.” That’s what is indicated by: “And the word back,” says Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.’” (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)”

      As regards the thermite etc.: Bush’s people had their own personal networks, outside of official government positions. Probably Cheney managed those aspects of the operation.

      In other words: Bandar, at that time, was part of a broader operation, which was being run by Bush-Cheney.

      • I share your work regularly on the /r/911truth subreddit. Maybe it is time for us to stop beating around the Bush family. 9/11 was a big ugly lie, and everybody knows it. Advanced thermitic material is present in all World Trade Center dust. It is not that I am unaware of other discussions, but I feel that until ceratin facts are widely acknowledged, we cannot progress logically to the discussion of other things.

        • Eric Zuesse

          Thank you; this feedback of yours is among several that spark me to be preparing now an article that integrates the involvement of the Sauds and of Bush’s people, along with their friends who operated outside any governmental command-structure, to bring about 9/11.

  • You do an exceptional job of tying it all together with a conclusion at the end – Saudi-US ties at the aristocracy level – that follows the facts and explains a great deal. The two words Bandar Bush show why this couldn’t come to light at the time of the original report. The ongoing commercial utility of the Saudis explains the secrecy since Bush departed.

    I also appreciated your comments on the dreadful pettiness of the government exposed by the lousy reproduction and non searchable text.

    I look forward to more of your analysis on this sad episode in US politics.

  • Mr Boompi

    This report, like the 911 Commission’s report, is so incomplete and flawed there is no reason why we should believe any of it. Maybe some of the facts might be accurate, but it serves to direct us away from the real perpetrators and therefore should be considered simple propaganda.