Summarizing ‘The Missing 28 Pages’: Who Was Behind 9/11?

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

The following summary consists of quotations from the suppressed 29 pages (previously miscalled ’28 pages’) themselves, so that the accuracy of this summary won’t be doubted. The entire document is here; and, of course, it provides much more information adding to the account that’s here merely summarized by these quotations from it.

The document focuses mainly on FBI information regarding two of the 19 hijackers, and on the two individuals who were their handlers in the United States, and on those individuals’ connections to (including their receipts of funds from) the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, and to other members of the Saudi royal family.

The SUMMARY (in its own words) now follows:

While in the United States, some [at least two] of the September 11 hijackers [Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi] were in contact with, and received support or assistance from … 

Omar al-Bayoumi. … FBI files suggest that al-Bayoumi provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Deigo in February 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers in a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate and there are indications in the files that his encounter with the hijackers may not have been accidental. During this same time-frame, al-Bayoumi had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense. According to the FBI files, [redacted] at the company said that al-Bayoumi received a monthly salary even though he had been there on only one occasion. This support increased substantially in April 2000, two months after the hijackers arrived in San Diego, decreased slightly in December 2000, and stayed at the same level until August 2001. That company reportedly had ties with Usami Bin Laden and al-Qa’ida.

Osama Bassnan. Bassnan may have been in contact with al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi during their time in San Diego. Bassnan was a close associate of al-Bayoumi. … He also lived across the street from the hijackers, and made a comment to an FBI asset that he did more than al-Bayoumi did for the hijackers. … The document goes on to state that Bassnan and al-Bayoumi have been “close to each other for a long time.” Bassnan has many ties to the Saudi Government, including past employment by the Saudi Arabian Education Mission. … The FBI also received reports from individuals in the Muslim community alleging that Bassnan might be a Saudi intelligence officer. According to a CIA memo, Bassnan 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 [Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud] and his wife. … The report states 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 supporter of Usama Bin Laden … [Also of potential interest are:]

Shaykh al-Thumairy. According to FBI documents and a CIA memorandum, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar may have been in contact with Shaykh al-Thumairy, an accredited diplomat in the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and one of the “imams” at the King Fahad mosque in Culver City, California. Also according to FBI documents, the mosque was built in 1998 from funding provided by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The mosque is reportedly attended by members of the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and is widely recognized for its anti-Western views. …

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.

According to FBI documents, several of the phone numbers found in the phone book of Abu Zubaida, a senior al-Qa’ida operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002, could be linked, at least indirectly, to the telephone numbers in the United States. One of those U.S. numbers is subscribed to by the ASPCOL Corporation, which is located in Aspen, Colorado, and manages the affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar. … According to an FBI document, the telephone number of a body guard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC, who some have alleged may be a [redacted] — was also found in Abu Zabaida’s possessions. …

Finally, the Committees are particularly concerned about the serious nature of allegations contained in a CIA memorandum found by the Joint Inquiry Staff in the files of the FBI’s San Diego Field Office. That memorandum, which discusses alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi Government officials, and members of the Saudi Royal Family, was drafted by a CIA officer [redacted], relying primarily on information from FBI files. The CIA officer sent it to the CTC to determine whether CIA had additional information. He also provided a copy to the FBI agent responsible for the investigation of one of the individuals discussed in the memorandum. Despite the clear national implications of the memorandum, the FBI agent included the memoradum in an individual case file and did not forward it to FBI Headquarters. FBI Headquarters, therefore, was unaware of statements in the memorandum until the Joint Inquiry brought the memorandum’s implications to the Bureau’s attention. [redacted]

Possible Saudi Government Connections to Terrorists and Terrorist Groups

While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government. There is information, from FBI sources, that at least two of these individuals [al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi] were alleged to be Saudi intelligence officers. The Joint Inquiry’s review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which remains speculative and yet to be independently verified, indicating that Saudi Government officials in the United States may have other ties to al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups.

In addition:

An FBI agent was quoted as having testified on 9 October 2002 regarding al-Bayoumi, that he: “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.”

For a fuller account of the individuals who were behind 9/11, and of the individuals who have been protecting those individuals:

My July 20th article reported U.S. President George W. Bush’s connection to these persons, and to the 9/11 attacks, and also U.S. President Barack Obama’s covering up for his predecessor-in-office, and for the Saud family. Both of America’s political Parties are in on this, and are covering up about it; the operation is bipartisan.

So: extensive evidence exists that 9/11 was financed by the Saudi royal family, and one item of conclusive stand-alone proof exists that George W. Bush had instructed his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to block anyone from being able to meet privately with him, or otherwise privately communicating to him, about whatever attacks involving airplanes and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or any other U.S. target, might be in preparation. And that evidence also shows that this Presidential refusal-to-know shocked the CIA Director, when Rice told him, “We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking” on those matters, about which the CIA Director was, by that time, frantic to get in to speak alone with the President and warn him about the urgency of taking action to block the attacks.

In other words: the President knew about the matter from sources outside the U.S. government, but he wanted to have, for the record (from the CIA and other official sources), plausible deniability that he had known anything at all about the impending attacks.

So: the long-bonded-together Bush and Saud families both had their own private — not merely their official and governmental — information sources about the impending attacks. Whereas the Sauds were masterminding and financing the operation (and so necessarily knew ahead-of-time the details of it), the U.S. President (the American Bush) simply refused to be officially informed about any of its details until the attacks had already occurred and the CIA and FBI would then be assigned to do a report explaining why they had failed to prevent it from occurring (which actually wasn’t within their power to prevent); they were just Bush’s hirees, to take the fall for him after the attacks.

In other words: this was a carefully planned and coordinated inside-job, in which the President was obsessed to retain plausible deniability that he had had any reason to have prior knowledge of it which might implicate him personally in any intentional blame in the matter; and in which the Saudi U.S. Ambassador and Prince, Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (the man nicknamed “Bandar Bush”), paid the jihadists’ government-minders (who, in turn, paid, and rented apartments for, the jihadists, and paid for their pilot-training).

Furthermore, my 11 February 2015 article reported that Osama bin Laden’s bag-man who personally collected each one of the million-dollar-plus cash donations to the organization, had said in sworn court-testimony, that “without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing” of al-Qaeda, and he specifically named Prince Bandar among the individuals from whom he had picked up at least one of those huge cash-donations. The other individuals were also Saudi Princes, and their close associates.

There also exists, from other sources, evidence that at least Building #7 of the World Trade Center might have been set up prior to the 9/11 attacks to be able to be brought down, on short notice, perhaps by means of prior placement there of nano-thermite and other professional multistory-building-demolition materials. This building housed offices of the CIA, FBI, SEC, and Secret Service. The fall of Tower 7 uniquely resembled a controlled demolition, perhaps set up just in case the collapse of Tower 1 or Tower 2 would fail to bring down also Tower 7. Nano-thermite at each of those buildings was alleged to have been found in the only scientific analysis that has yet been done of surviving samples salvaged from 9/11. (However, proponents of the official story on 9/11 counter-argue that getting the requisite quantity of nano-thermite into these buildings would surely have been detected, and that it was not detected and so didn’t happen.) Proponents of the official account of how Tower 7 came down have never presented a credible explanation of how all of that building’s numerous supports somehow managed to become suddenly nonfunctional simultaneously. Part of a controlled demolition is precisely such simultaneity. If that simultaneity occurred without controlled demolition, it would be one of several historically unprecedented aspects of the way this building collapsed. Structural engineers very much need to know how it happened, because if they don’t find out, then all existing and future skyscrapers are and will be subject to whatever did cause that building’s collapse. If a coverup continues on that matter too, then architecture of skyscrapers is and will continue to be jeopardized.

Furthermore, firefighters who were on the scene at Towers 1 and 2, testified at the time, they definitely heard “explosions,” and a pair of firefighters there said that specifically they heard three explosions in their tower, and that the first occurred “after the fire was going on already,” soon after they had entered the building, at around an hour after the plane-hit. In those accounts, the explosions were said to have sounded as if they occurred somewhere above the ground floor, but below the height where the plane had hit the building. Additional testimony referred to explosions that allegedly occurred much earlier, and as far down as from the basement. All of the accounts are consistent with a possibility that even those tower-collapses were some type of controlled demolition, not unassisted collapse. However, some or all of this testimony could have been people’s honest errors. On the other hand, in another video, a professional in controlled demolition said (6:50) that “What we use now is RDX copper-jacketed safe charges, and when they’re initiated, there is nothing left of them; and, in the case of thermite, well, thermite self-consuming cutting charges have been around since they were first patented in 1984. So, there would be nothing left in the debris-pile except some residue of molten iron,” which there was. He said, regarding Building 7, (10:00) “I knew from day one that this was a controlled event.” (That 23-minute video is devastating.)

And, on top of that, the passenger-manifests on the four 9/11 planes seem to be bogus, and the 9/11 Commission report itself noted in passing, as being unworthy of mention except tangentially in a footnote, that, “Financial records did not reveal the purchase of any tickets beyond those the hijackers used for themselves.” (That’s on page 452, footnote 21, in the official ‘investigation’, and if one looks there in the book, nothing is said about this remarkable allegation, though it obviously doesn’t fit the official story.)

Finally, there also is evidence that major international investors knew in advance not only when the attacks would happen but what firms would be harmed by it — and invested so as to profit from those hits. The identities of the beneficiaries of those extremely profitable trades haven’t been tracked down, but their brokerage firms are known.

Unless the identities of the beneficiaries (the principals) becomes known, there can’t be any investigation to determine precisely whom the sources of the new information were that had caused these investors to order those changes to be made to their investments. There might be a connection between these beneficiaries and the royal Sauds, and/or the Bushes (perhaps as their friends, or else as co-investors), but such matters are only idle speculation unless and until serious investigations are held regarding those specific trades. Thus far, all that has happened after 9/11 is cover-ups, stifled ‘investigations’, etc., and loads of propaganda alleging that the official story of 9/11 is true. Americans are sufficiently satisfied with those lies so as to still routinely refer to the country as a ‘democracy’, even fifteen years after 9/11, fifteen years with zero prosecutions of any of the higher-ups except killings of some key members of al-Qaeda (including some who had nothing to do with 9/11) — and fifteen years with serious unresolved issues for the world’s architects of skyscrapers.

In order to be able to reconstruct how the 9/11 attacks occurred, it’s not enough merely to know that the Saud family were paying the jihadists (bin Laden’s bagman even called the payments to them “salaries”), and that the U.S. President had instructed his National Security Advisor to wall him off from private communication with the CIA chief about any such matter, but the elite beneficiaries of the 9/11 attacks need to be identified and prosecuted. However, unfortunately, that would require prosecution of people such as George W. Bush for the crime plus the cover-up, and people such as Barack Obama for the continuation of the cover-up. And — for example — Obama blocks prosecution of Hillary Clinton; so, he would never prosecute himself, for anything. (He can’t do so, anyway; a President becomes prosecutable only after having left office. But his Administration could prosecute her.) And a President Hillary Clinton would likewise continue the impunity at the top of the American regime. (That’s obvious to everyone.) No one knows whether the impunity would continue if Donald Trump becomes the President; but, if he doesn’t at least state clearly during his campaign, that living prior Presidents will be seriously investigated for all possible violations of U.S. criminal laws, and of their oath-of-office, then the only reasonable assumption would be that Trump will continue the existing dictatorship, no matter how much he might otherwise change some of its policies.

How can democracy ever be restored to America if this impunity at the top continues? If no American President will bite the bullet, then won’t that mean the death of democracy in America? Isn’t that a pre-revolutionary situation? If so, then the overriding question in this entire matter is: How much longer will America’s current dictatorship continue?

—————

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Brockland A.T.

    Er, a President DID bite the bullet; President John F. Kennedy.

    President Ronald Reagan might have dared further against the Deep State, but that one assassination attempt made him reconsider; his primary goal was ending the Cold War and averting any chance of nuclear war.

    • Eric Zuesse

      His legacy, regardless, was horrific.

      • Brockland A.T.

        And was the tradeoff worth it?

        Here we are a quarter century later in Cold War II, very much facing the spectre of nuclear war, but additionally handicapped by a broken middle class thanks to the long term effects of Reaganomics.

        Trump not only needs to win and survive, he needs to do better than Reagan and rebuild the middle class even as he defuses the neoconservative bomb.

        • diogenes

          The point of inflection in all the economic curves for the US was the yearly 70s, years before “Reaganomics.” The deep policy shifts occurred under Ford and earlier.

          • Brockland A.T.

            Nixon wasn’t above taxing high income earners and generally wasn’t thrilled about tax cuts that couldn’t translate into jobs. Ford wasn’t that different. Although they did begin the trend towards deregulation, they were focused on the transportation and oil industry, not the financial industry.

            Reagan, on the other hand, figured reducing taxes on high-income earners would have benefits that ‘trickled down’ to the lower levels of the economy, and also further deregulated financial markets.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=0

            Reaganomics completed the foundations of today’s rampant bubble economics the Clintons built their house on. Needless to say burning the house down with everyone else in it and collecting the insurance is probably a Clinton solution-in-waiting.

  • diogenes

    Good work. Thanks. Hat’s off.

  • Sarastro92

    The claim that Bush had operational or advanced info about 9/11 is ridiculous and unsupported by any facts. What is supported by the facts (that Zuesse forgets to mention ) is that the CIA and FBI (and likely the US military) all DID have important operational roles in 9/11… it’s this rogue network of the “deep state” that staged 9/11 with the Saudis… to facilitate their agenda: a Permanent War (“Against Terror): and the construction of an Orwellian Police State.

    • Ulrich

      Who Was Behind 9/11?
      CIA + Mossad + MI6

      End of story.

      • Sarastro92

        There
        There’s no evidence of an operational role of Mossad or MI6 .. If you have such evidence, post links. Dancing Israelis does not equal “operational role”

        • Libertymike

          You’re right: Dancing Israelis equals “HAVA NAGILA”!

    • cettel

      How then do you explain this: “when Rice told him, ‘We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking’ on those matters, about which the CIA Director was, by that time, frantic to get in to speak alone with the President and warn him about the urgency of taking action to block the attacks”?

      • Sarastro92

        ” no actionable intelligence”… At no point did CIA Director Tenet disclose that at least two al Qaeda operatives had been in the US for 15 months (’cause the CIA made that happen) and what the AlQ personnel were doing while in the country… nor did the FBI report that their informant was housing al Q members in San Diego; nor that al Q members were taking flying lessons and being escorted around by Saudi intelligence agents… or that Massoui was picked up with incriminating info on his laptop; and that there was a Florida cell under surveillance as well. Nothing.. There is no record that any of these “actionable” items was every forwarded to the WH or Counter-Terror czar Richard Clarke. (In fact Clarke was deliberately excluded from the usual raw intelligence on alQ)

        All that Tenent did was go to the WH screaming that something bad was in the works… but couldn’t tell anything what the “bad stuff ” was….

        So with no firm intelligence to go on, did you expect Bush to put the country indefinitely on lock down?

  • kimyo

    imagine if trump said the words ‘building 7’. if he truly loves this country, he must do so.

    what a thing it would be to behold. cnn/fox/msnbc/pbs would collectively lose their minds.

    • Eric Zuesse

      For once (or, maybe twice — or did I forget more?), we agree.

      • kimyo

        here’s the three things i really wish we agreed upon:
        1) climate initiatives are extremely unlikely to deliver any sort of net plus for the environment
        2) voting on diebold is a pointless exercise
        3) sanders was only there to give clinton the appearance of an opponent

        it would be nice if trump were for real. however, until he says ‘building 7’ or ‘why did norad stand down?’ or ‘u.s. sponsored coup in ukraine’ i’m putting him in the ‘appearance of an opponent’ camp.

        • cettel

          I generally agree with what you’ve just said, but with provisos:
          1) I agree with James Lovelock that it’s too late to block climate-catastrophe.
          2) I do expect the vote-counts to be fictitious. I expect Trump to lose even if he actually wins overwhelmingly in the real vote.
          3) I don’t think that Sanders wasn’t trying to win the Democratic nomination. I think he tried his best to win. But now that he has lost, he stays within the Democratic Party because he knows that the winner is going to be either Clinton or Trump. I think he’s hoping it will be Trump. But, of course, regardless of whom he is hoping to win, he needs to avoid seeming to oppose Clinton, because he doesn’t want his movement to be blamed for her loss if she loses. He’s hoping for his movement to take over the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020 or 2024.

          • kimyo

            somehow you seem to miss how completely obscene it is for sanders to have endorsed clinton. to have stood idly by when he could have been informing california voters of the upcoming ballot issues.

            you’ve expressed your positive view of pcr before, here he is on the ‘sanders movement’: Election Fraud and America’s Horror Story: How the Democrats Found a Boogeyman in Hillary’s Emails

            Bernie Sanders, when he supported Clinton, discredited himself and demoralized all his supporters. Therefore, they turned away from him too. That eliminates him as a leader. He ruined it for himself. If he had gone to the convention and said: “You stole the elections from me! I’m the one who won”, he would be the most popular American today. He could run as an independent candidate and win.

            ……….Bernie Sanders is considered an outsider to the oligarchs. They did not found his campaign. But now he has been broken as a political leader and it is the end for him.

          • Eric Zuesse

            He knows that his movement has prematurely reached the stage of needing to establish itself as a movement, no longer merely the political extension of himself. That’s the reality. He chose Nina Taylor. Hillary tried to weaken her so that the movement will quickly end.

  • jadan

    If the WTC was brought down ( buildings 1-7) by hijacked airliners, then Saudi support for the hijackers would seem to be important. But airliners did not destroy the WTC. So where’s Waldo? WTC 7 Seems a classic controlled demo. Demo to bring down WTC 1-6 doesn’t fit what we know about controlled demo. Just how these buildings were destroyed is not known and this document offers no clue. The secret government, or deep state, did it. But we don’t know how. The Saudis may have paid for a cover story by supporting the supposed hijackers, but one can’t blame them for bringing the buildings down.

  • Read this, written a decade ago:

    http://plungerspeaks.blogspot.com/