9/11 “Hijackers”

Sourcebook on 9/11 and its Aftermath


19 September 2007

Table of Contents

Treatment of Muslims

Bin Laden Never Charged with 9/11

CIA Reportedly Disbands bin Laden Unit

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan on bin Laden

Lack of Detail on Terrorists

The Closing of “Able Danger”

Osama bin Laden a Member of the Carlyle Group?

No Investigation of bin Laden Airlift

Bin Laden Treated at American Hospital Few Months before 9/11

Who was the “bin Laden” in the Nov. 2006 Video?

FBI, CIA agents met with bin Laden lieutenant after 9/11

Bin Laden Allowed to Walk?

Why would the U.S. not Supply Documents to a German Court to Convict Qaeda Member?

Hijackers get Visas from CIA Consulate at Jeddah

Hijackers Alive?

Payoff to Mohammed Atta through Pakistan?

Treatment of Muslims

Human rights advocates, civil libertarians, and immigrant rights activists sharply criticized the appointment of Chertoff for his abusive record as Ashcroft’s chief counterterrorism prosecutor. As the architect of the post-September 11th initiatives on the domestic war on terror, Chertoff supervised the round-up of 750 Arabs and other Muslims on suspicion of immigration violations. Treated as suspected terrorist sympathizers or material witnesses, the “suspects” were held without bond for as long as three months, often in solitary confinement, despite having never been charged with any crime. Eventually, most were released or deported after secret tribunals.

In a 2003 report, the Justice Department’s Inspector General criticized these draconian measures as “indiscriminate and haphazard.” The report also concluded that Chertoff and other top government officials instituted a “hold until clear” policy for immigrant detainees even though immigration officials questioned the policy’s legality. In his book After, author Steven Brill describes how Chertoff obstructed access by the post-9/11 detainees to lawyers, reasoning that they “could be questioned without lawyers present because they were not being charged with any crime.”

Not one of the almost exclusively Muslim “detainees” was ultimately indicted for terrorism-related crimes. Chertoff, who also coordinated the aggressive questioning of more than 5,000 Arab Americans immediately after the 9/11 attacks, remains unapologetic and continues to argue that the “war on terrorism” justifies the government’s right to hold suspects indefinitely without counsel as possible “enemy combatants.” (Tom Barry, “A Legal Storm Trooper: Chertoff No Friend of Immigrants,” CounterPunch, 1 April 2005, downloaded from, 7 August 2007.)

Bin Laden Never Charged with 9/11

Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, The Prince, The Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, The Director


Date of Birth Used: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Eyes: Brown
Height: 6’4″ to 6’6″ Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin Citizenship: Saudi Arabian
Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, The Prince, The Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, The Director


Date of Birth Used: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Brown
Height: 6’4″ to 6’6″ Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin
Language: Arabic (probably Pashtu)
Scars and Marks: None known
Remarks: Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.


Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.



| New York Field Office | Most Wanted Terrorists |
| FBI Home Page | FBI Field Offices |

(, downloaded 31 July 2007.)

It may seem beyond belief that the US government would have failed to support Ted Olson’s claim [that he received a call from his wife, Barbara, aboard Flight 77]. We ourselves, as we indicated, were amazed at this development. However, it would not be the first time that the FBI—surely the agency that prepared this report about phone calls from the flights30—had failed to support the official story about 9/11. We refer to the fact that when Rex Tomb, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why the bureau’s website on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted, he replied: “[T]he FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”31 (Dr. David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo, “Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones,” Pilots for 911 Truth, 26 June 2007, downloaded from, 31 July 2007.)


30 It would appear that the FBI report referred to above, “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” is simply one portion of the complete report the FBI presented on telephone calls from all four flights at the Moussaoui trial. Note also, as mentioned in the text below, that it was a member of the FBI who stated at the Moussaoui trial that only two calls from UA 93 were cell phone calls.

31 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists (; Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (

Ed Haas’ later work regarding the authenticity of the ‘confession tape’ caught the FBI saying: “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Ed also caught the FBI admitting that authentication work on the ‘confession tape’ is in a sealed investigative file.

The FBI would rather say bin Laden is not connected to 9/11 because revealing the results of any tape authentication, a necessary process prior to submitting it in evidence to a Grand Jury, would have also revealed the complicity of U.S. intelligence. (Maher Osseiran, “Is bin Laden Responsible for the 911 Attacks?” Muckraker Report, 26 July 2007 downloaded from, 30 July 2007.)

But if there are various problems with the government’s story about the hijackers, surely it presented proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the operation? Insofar as this belief is widely held, it also is a myth. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to provide a white paper providing proof that the attacks had been planned by bin Laden, but this paper was never produced. British Prime Minister Tony Blair did provide such a paper, which was entitled “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States.” But it begins with the admission that it “does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.” (So, evidence good enough to go to war, but not good enough to go to court.) And although the Taliban said that it would hand bin Laden over if the United States presented evidence of his involvement in 9/11, Bush refused. (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

CIA Reportedly Disbands bin Laden Unit

A CIA unit that had hunted for Usama bin Laden and his top deputies for a decade has been disbanded, according to a published report. Citing unnamed intelligence officials, The New York Times reported Tuesday that the unit, known as “Alec Station,” was shut down late last year. The decision to close the unit, which predated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was first reported Monday by National Public Radio. (Source Associated Press, July 4, 2006) (“CIA Reportedly Disbands Bin Laden Unit,” ny9/, downloaded from, 11 Sept. 2007.)

International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan on bin Laden

The defense advanced by amicus curiae [representing Defendant George W. Bush] is, that the military attack of 7th October 2001 ordered by the Defendant, as President of the United States and its Commander in Chief , was a ‘just war’ or a ‘bellum justum’; a war of self defense, a preventive war; in response to the terrorist attacks of al Qaeda , masterminded by Osama bin Laden, harboured by the Taliban government in Afghanistan , which had permitted terrorist camps on its territory ; who were committing hostile acts against the United States of America .

6. 11th September 2001 attacks in the United States had no connection with Afghanistan .

The prosecution has questioned the factual and legal basis of this defense , submitting at page 17 of its Indictment that

it is not established that the 9.11 incidents were the acts of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda ……..the letter to the Chairman of the UN Security Council which the United States sent on October 7 ,2001 and another letter which the United Kingdom sent of October 4, 2001 and the videotape released on December 13 are inadequate as defences .Therefore the criminal activities of Osama bin Laden and the members of the al Qaeda have never been established enough to prosecute them for 9.11 incidents. (Judgement of Professor Ms Niloufer Bhagwat J, International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo, 13 March 2004, downloaded from, 30 Aug. 2007.)

Lack of Detail on Terrorists

Within days of the attacks, we were told that the perpetrators were from a terrorist network known as al-Qaeda. When reporters and members of the public asked for details, then Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that it would be made all clear to the world in a White Paper.

Nearly 4 years, and 2 wars later, we still have no official statement from the Bush administration on the specifics of who did it, who aided and financed them or what their origins are.

For the families who suffered so much loss this surely feels like adding insult to injury. They deserve to know everything that there is to be known about how their loved ones died. They fought for an investigation that would be non-partisan, independent, and that would get to the bottom of things. But, as work got underway, not only did the Commission run up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies, many, if not most of the commissioners themselves had conflicts of interest. (Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former 6-term Congresswoman from Georgia 1993 – 2002, 2005 – 2006; member of the House Armed Services Committee and Member of the International Relations Committee, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.

Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden.

One of the main pieces of alleged proof involved the claim that the baggage of Mohamed Atta, called the ringleader of the hijackers, was discovered at the Boston airport, from which Flight 11 departed. This baggage, besides containing Atta’s passport and driver’s license, also contained various types of incriminating evidence, such as flight simulator manuals, videotapes about Boeing airliners, and a letter to other hijackers about preparing for the mission. But the bags also contained Atta’s will. Why would Atta have intended to take his will on a plane that he planned to fly into the World Trade Center? There are also many other problems in this story. We appear to have planted evidence.

Another element of the official story about the alleged hijackers is that they were very devout Muslims. The 9/11 Commission Report said that Atta had become very religious, even “fanatically so.” The public was thereby led to believe that these men would have had no problem going on this suicide mission, because they were ready to meet their maker. Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, however, discovered that Atta loved cocaine, alcohol, gambling, pork, and lap dances. Several of the other alleged hijackers, the Wall Street Journal reported, had similar tastes. The Commission pretends, however, that none of this information was available. While admitting that Atta met other members of al-Qaeda in Las Vegas shortly before 9/11, it says that it saw “no credible evidence explaining why, on this occasion and others, the operatives flew to or met in Las Vegas.”

Another problem in the official account is that, although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names. We have also been given no proof that the remains of any of these men were found at any of the crash sites. (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

The New Pearl Harbor cited reports that although Mohamed Atta, the supposed ringleader, had been portrayed as a devout Muslim ready to meet his maker, he actually loved alcohol, pork, and lap dances. Zelikow’s commission, however, said that Atta had become “fanatically” religious. They also claimed that they could find no credible explanation as to why Atta and the other hijackers went to Las Vegas. The mainstream press has let the Commission get away with these obvious contradictions. (Dr. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, 29 July 2005, downloaded from, 15 Aug. 2007.)

The Closing of “Able Danger”

Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it “was not historically significant.” This astounding conclusion–in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings–raises serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. … No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a “new” commission to investigate. (Statement of Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 – 2001, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)
Lou Dobbs: Why is there this reaction to what is called by more than half of our congressmen and women, to open up and to allow our elected representatives to know what happened?

Louis Freeh: Well, it’s a great question. I mean, the issue here, which was the issue when the 9/11 commission first responded to this, is they obviously missed something. They obviously didn’t consider what at least is a very important allegation.

Their response to it, it was historically insignificant. Historically insignificant that an intelligence unit may have identified by name and photo, Mohamed Atta a year before the 9/11 hijackings as a member of al Qaeda in the United States.

Lou Dobbs: Tim Roemer, Slade Gorton, other members of the 9/11 commission have said they just had no hard evidence to deal with here. How do you respond?

Louis Freeh: I disagree with that. I was a prosecutor and an FBI agent for many, many years. I deal in facts. You have two witnesses. You have United States Naval Academy graduate, Captain Phillpott, you have Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, an army intelligence officer. These aren’t data loaders, these are intelligence experts who both have said, unequivocally, this unit identified Mohammed Atta by name and possibly photo in mid 2000.

To say that they don’t have any documents to prove their case, these aren’t informants that we have to verify their credibility. We have testimonial evidence, which, as a prosecutor, that’s more potent sometimes than documentary evidence.

Lou Dobbs: You were director of the FBI until June of 2001. Were you ever aware of Able Danger? Was the FBI ever given any reason to sense that there was some military intelligence or military intelligence evidence or suggestion that there would be an attack or some relationship to Mohamed Atta?

Louis Freeh: Absolutely not. Myself, but also my former colleagues and current FBI colleagues, we read about this in the newspapers in August of this year. And what is very significant here Lou — which is a point that has been made, and which I think you made — we had officers at Able Danger who made appointments, actually made appointments to go to the FBI and share this intelligence in 2000 and those appointments were canceled.

It had to be a very powerful stimulus, this intelligence and information, to make these officers want to really breach the chain of command and go directly to the FBI. We’d like to know why those appointments were canceled. (Statement of Louis Freeh – Director of the FBI, 1993 – 2001, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)

Regarding the Able Danger project – “… basic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools … resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. …

After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a “preconceived” conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were “urban legend”. ….

Why did this operation, which was created in ’99 to target Al Qaeda globally, offensively, why was that turned off in the Spring of 2001, four months before we were attacked? I can’t answer that, either. I can tell you I was ordered out of the operation directly by a two-star general. But I don’t know what the bigger picture was of why you’d want to stop an operation going after the very target who attacked us, in advance, why you’d want to turn it off.” (Statement of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve – Commander of Special Troops Battalion, 9th Theater Support Command, former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts; a former member of the Able Danger data mining program that targeted Al Qaeda’s global structure, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)

[Fox TV News] Interviewer: We had Congressman Weldon on a couple days ago. Able Danger is not going away.
Col. Hunt: No and it shouldn’t. This is about very, very good guys; six to ten; both military and civilian; Lieutenant Colonels and Navy Captains; O-6’s; who did data mining and discovered some very interesting information. Oh, by the way, the program should be running now. It was completely successful.

They went to the government and the government didn’t want to talk to them. And they went to the 9/11 Commission and they didn’t want to talk to them. Now they’re testifying again. And there’s some amazing stuff coming out of this. And with the war on terror, we need the Able Danger’s and we don’t need the government going after its own agents, which is what they did here.

Interviewer: But it seems there’s some debate on Capital Hill regarding Able Danger about whether or not U.S. officials knew about Mohammed Atta before September 11th or if they didn’t.

Col. Hunt: What’s being talked about in the Congressional Record — It’s part of the Congressional Record. Open. Open. — is that the White House was — Libby was briefed and Hadley were briefed in 2001. A lot of people knew about Atta. These guys have it on the record. (Statement of Col. David Hunt, MA, U.S. Army (ret) – Expert in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations. Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)

Osama bin Laden a Member of the Carlyle Group?

[Onscreen display for CBS News video covering an alleged plane down at Camp David:

“… the work of TERRORISTS!”

“…the work of Osama bin Laden!”

Who is tied to Carlyle Group…

…Bush family! (Probably not CBS graphics, but graphics of producer of video; superimposed on CBS News footage, 11 Sept. 2001, seen in 9/11 Conspiracy: Flight 93 Crashes at Camp David, downloaded from, 1 August 2007.)

Osama bin Laden [was] a Carlyle Group associate of President George H. W. Bush. (9/11 Conspiracy: Flight 93 Crashes at Camp David, downloaded from, 1 August 2007.)

No Investigation of bin Laden Airlift

The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Laden Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.) (The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11, 2001, May 16 2006, downloaded from, 31 July 2007.)

Bin Laden Treated at American Hospital Few Months before 9/11

July 4, 2001, Osama bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998 receives medical attention from the American Hospital in Dubai where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA. (Loose Change, downloaded from, 15 Aug. 2007.)

There are, moreover, other problems in the official account of Osama bin Laden. For one thing, in June of 2001, when he was already America’s “most wanted” criminal, he reportedly spent two weeks in the American Hospital in Dubai, at which he was treated by an American doctor and visited by the local CIA agent. (Sometimes the truth slips out.) (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

September 10, 2001. … In Pakistan, at a military hospital, all the urologists are replaced by a special team, in order to host their guest of honour, Osama bin Laden, who is carefully escorted inside to be watched carefully and looked after. (Loose Change, downloaded from, 15 Aug. 2007.)

[Ed. Meanwhile, consider this:]

Some sources who have read the still-secret [C.I.A.] congressional report say some sections would not play quite so neatly into White House [re-election] plans. One portion deals extensively with the stream of U.S. intelligence-agency reports in the summer of 2001 suggesting that Al Qaeda was planning an upcoming attack against the United States—and implicitly raises questions about how Bush and his top aides responded. One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike “in the coming weeks,” the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: “The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” (Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, “The Secrets of September 11,” Newsweek National News Online, 30 April 2003, downloaded from, 7 Sept. 2007.)

Who was the “bin Laden” in the Nov. 2006 Video?

This failure to provide proof was later said to be unnecessary because bin Laden, in a video allegedly found in Afghanistan, admitted responsibility for the attacks. This “confession” is now widely cited as proof. However, the man in this video has darker skin, fuller cheeks, and a broader nose than the Osama bin Laden of all the other videos. We again seem to have planted evidence. (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

FBI, CIA agents met with bin Laden lieutenant after 9/11

According to an internal memo sent to Vice President Richard Cheney from former U.S. Ambassador to Somalia Leo Wanta, an FBI special agent-in-charge and a CIA intelligence contractor met with an associate of Osama bin Laden (OBL) in Manila, Philippines 30 days after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Under standard chain-of-custody procedures regarding the sensitive document with evidence directly related to the 9-11 attacks, Cheney would have passed it on to then National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice who would have delivered the memo to President Bush, according to intelligence sources familiar with the document.

An individual with knowledge of the meetings told that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been in possession of the explosive memo which provides evidence that Cheney knew FBI and CIA officials met with one of bin Laden’s associates in the days following September 11.

Given Fitzgerald’s awareness of the memo, serious questions are raised for the grand jury as to why FBI and CIA officials, ostensibly representing the U.S. government, were meeting with a bin Laden lieutenant important enough to be shown with the “terrorist” leader in a White House-produced video not long after the attacks—but also why Cheney and Bush have not publicized the memo which names the agents and why Congress continues to cover up the memo’s existence.

The document names FBI special agent-in-charge Robert Wachtel and CIA intelligence contractor Brad Lee as being present and “in close contact with” a person identified as Datu ben Abu. [Abu is also a Russian KGB agent according to knowledgeable intelligence sources.]

The Wanta-Cheney memo revealed that U.S. Asia intelligence operations advised that Datu ben Abu was “in a wheel chair” and “in observing the video [Bush administration cable news “terror” video] recently released of OBL, intel op is of the opinion that the man against the wall with the blanket over his legs, full face beard, large hands, wide nose and dark set eyes is the same person identified as Datu ben Abu.”

When we last talked with Ambassador Wanta, he was being held under house arrest by the Bush administration.

Wanta has not testified before Congress while the White House is reportedly keeping him away from increasingly inquisitive Democratic senators who are currently feeling constituent pressure to do their job regarding justice and accountability, given the recent publicity and indictment of Cheney’s chief-of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

It is not known whether Wanta has already testified before Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury.

The memo revealed that “Datu ben Abu held further meetings (during the same time period—30 days after 9-11) with a Russian group staying at the Pan Pacific Hotel Metro Manila Philippines,” providing telltale evidence of some Russian involvement which Congress and the Bush administration have thus far held in confidence.

Congress is also covering up the fact that Osama bin Laden is a former U.S. intelligence contractor. [ Click here to view an internal memo indicating “previous U.S. government field reports on file and fully documented” regarding “Tim Osman and Ralph Olberg / U.S. Department of State—Afghanistan desk, et. al., Visitation with U.S. government public officials [Osman = Usama/Osama bin Laden/OBL” ]

Besides raising serious questions as to why Congress is not explaining Osama bin Laden’s past U.S. intelligence operative background and how this former—or current—relationship is related to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the memo also alludes to the sale of U.S. stinger missiles to Iraq prior to Gulf War I.

That Congress has continually misled the American people by failing to require Bush and Cheney to explain why FBI and CIA officials met with bin Laden operatives after the 9-11 attacks and why they obstructed justice during the 9-11 investigation may be linked to the “sealed files protected by national security” that Patrick Fitzgerald entered into the court record along with his Scooter Libby indictments last Friday. (Tom Flocco, “Cheney knew FBI, CIA met with bin Laden lieutenant after 9-11,”, 2 Nov. 2005, downloaded from, 6 August 2007.)

Bin Laden Allowed to Walk?

After 9/11, when America was reportedly trying to get bin Laden “dead or alive,” the US military evidently allowed him to escape on at least four occasions, the last one being the “battle of Tora Bora,” which the London Telegraph labeled “a grand charade.”36 Shortly thereafter, Bush said: “I don’t know where he [bin Laden] is. . . . I just don’t spend that much time on him. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.” (Sometimes the truth slips out.) (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

We made a great show of taking down the Taliban, even as we let Osama Bin Laden slip through our fingers at Tora Bora.

We had pinpointed OBL’s location by radio. We could absolutely have picked him up. Several friends of mine in the black ops world have told me repeatedly that we’ve known were [sic] OBL was at all times. A man in Hollywood was approached by a CIA operative to do a documentary of the secret tailing of OBL. So it’s not like we can’t find him.

And if we weren’t picking him up, why? Could it be because ties between his actions and those of our intelligence community might raise disturbing questions about 9/11? An intelligence asset told me of a friend of his that had just come back from handing OBL a wad of cash. “For attacking us, or so he wouldn’t attack us again,” I asked, but got (predictably) no response. (“Scooter Libby’s Pardon and 9/11,” Real History Blog, 3 July 2007, downloaded from, 7 August 2007.)

David Ray Griffin: And then after 9/11 [there were] stories about not really going after Bin Laden.

Q: Was it the British press that suggested we deliberately allowed Bin Laden to escape?

DRG: One of their mainstream newspapers concluded that the so-called Battle of Tora Bora was just a farce. (“Interview with David Ray Griffin,” Whole Life Times, downloaded from, 7 August 2007.)

We concluded that bin Laden was allowed to walk because if he were captured instead of just being taped, there would have been diminished justification and therefore less support for military actions in Afghanistan. Arguably, if bin Laden had been captured or killed when the CIA had the chance on September 26, 2001 – the Bush Administration would have met much greater resistance against its invasion of Afghanistan. (Maher Osseiran, “Is bin Laden Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks?” Muckraker Report, downloaded from, 2 August 2007.)

Why would the U.S. not Supply Documents to a German Court to Convict Qaeda Member?

FRANKFURT, Feb. 7 — Germany’s highest court on Tuesday released a Moroccan man who had been convicted of belonging to a cell of Al Qaeda whose members included the Sept. 11 hijackers, pending an appeal of his case.

The court ruled that the man, Mounir el-Motassadeq, should not be jailed while his lawyer appealed his conviction by a Hamburg court last August, when he was sentenced to seven years in prison.

The decision, which surprised even his lawyer, adds a new chapter to a serpentine legal case that stretches back to late 2001 when the police in Hamburg arrested Mr. Motassadeq on suspicion that he helped the hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

“The court did not decide on his guilt or innocence,” said Dietlind Weinland, a spokeswoman for the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. “He is being released because of a legal process.”

In 2003, Mr. Motassadeq was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, becoming the first person to be found guilty of involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But the conviction was overturned on appeal several months later and a new trial was ordered. In 2005, he was tried again and found guilty, but only of belonging to a terrorist organization, not of being an accessory to murder. He was given a shorter sentence, though the court ordered that he remain in custody pending appeal. …

In delivering the verdict last year, the presiding judge said the United States’ refusal to provide evidence made it hard for the court to convict Mr. Motassadeq of complicity in the attacks — a more serious charge than his conviction for being a member of a terrorist organization. (Mark Landler, “Germany Frees Man in Qaeda Cell Linked to 9/11 Terrorists,” New York Times, 8 Feb. 2006.)

Hijackers get Visas from CIA Consulate at Jeddah

Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman:- “Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah.” Allen L. Roland, “Too Many 9/11 Questions Still Unanswered,” 11 September 2007, downloaded from, 15 Sept. 2007.)

And then there was the oddity of the single passport. The black boxes may have been destroyed and steel girders melted – yet somehow one of the hijackers’ passports avoided this inferno and was found intact in a nearby street by ‘a passer-by’.

To Henshall and Morgan, that seems absurd, as does the almost instant identification of this person as a hijacker rather than a passenger or a Twin Towers office worker. Conspiracy theorists suspect the passport was planted to help establish the official story in the first, critical hours after the disaster. (Tony Rennell, “9/11 on Trial,” Daily Mail, 6 Aug. 2005, downloaded from, 15 Sept. 2007.)

Hijackers Alive?

What happened to those reports that surfaced within months of September 11th stating that 7 or more of the alleged hijackers had come forward and claimed that they were victims of stolen identities …? Why did the [9/11] Commission choose not even to address this? (Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former 6-term Congresswoman from Georgia 1993 – 2002, 2005 – 2006; member of the House Armed Services Committee and Member of the International Relations Committee, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)

One final little problem is that several of these 19 men, according to stories published by the BBC and British newspapers, are still alive. For example, The 9/11 Commission Report named Waleed al-Shehri as one of the hijackers and reproduced the FBI’s photograph of him. It even suggested that al-Shehri stabbed one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the north tower. But as BBC News had reported 11 days after 9/11, al-Shehri, having seen his photograph in newspapers and TV programs, notified authorities and journalists in Morocco, where he works as a pilot, that he is still alive. (David Ray Griffin in, downloaded 19 Aug. 2007.)

Q: How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

A: Those names were chosen prior to 9/11, by way of a “false flag” deception intended to convince the American People that the real hijackers were Arabs who “hate our freedoms”. Several of those alleged Arab “hijackers” turned up alive the following day, however. Their several passports were most probably stolen, in order to implicate those same Arab men. (9/, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at, downloaded August 6, 2007.)

The New Pearl Harbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he “had never even heard of Pennsylvania,” let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower. (Dr. David Ray Griffin, “9/11 and the Mainstream Press,” 9/11 Visibility Project, 29 July 2005, downloaded from, 15 Aug. 2007.)

Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Mohand Al-Shehri, Abdul Aziz Al-Omari and Salem Al-Hazmi “are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington,” the Saudi Arabian embassy told the Orlando Sentinel.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20th [that] “it was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened.” (“Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well,” 9/11 Research, downloaded from, 6 August 2007.)

But of course we heard within days of the events that something like five or six of these people were still alive and well and living in the Middle East. (Richard Heinberg, author, The Oil Depletion Protocol in Coincidences 9/11, Part 10.)

Q: Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11, and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

A: By following the money, such payments would necessarily lead directly to the principals who financed the entire operation, e.g. Mossad, CIA, and their co-conspirators in the Pentagon, including of course at least 94 paid spies who had previously infiltrated the ground crews at Dulles and National airports by violating immigrations laws and falsifying Social Security applications. (9/, Answers to 9/11 Families’ Questions, posted 20 July 2007 at, downloaded August 6, 2007.)

What about the terrorist Omar Said Sheikh? … According to Indian intelligence, this man received orders from a Pakistani General to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. People all over the world are talking about this story. But not a word about it in the Report. (Statement of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former 6-term Congresswoman from Georgia 1993 – 2002, 2005 – 2006; member of the House Armed Services Committee and Member of the International Relations Committee, Patriots Question 9/11, downloaded from, 16 Aug. 2007.)

Print Friendly