The ’28 pages’: Congress releases report on alleged Saudi 9/11 tie

The Congress has made public “the 28 pages,” the long expurgated section of the 9/11 Commission report dealing with Saudi Arabia’s role in the events leading up to the attack.

On first reading, the pages show that U.S. official suspected, but could not prove, that senior officials in the kingdom might have been involved in supporting the hijackers.

This shows that long-secret JFK records can also be forced into the open despite governmental opposition.

Under pressure from the victims’ families and lawmakers, President Barack Obama said in April his administration would declassify the pages.

Source: ’28 pages’: Congress releases report on alleged Saudi 9/11 ties –

9 thoughts on “The ’28 pages’: Congress releases report on alleged Saudi 9/11 tie”

  1. Also welcoming the report’s release was former Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, who has long called for the documents to be made public. The Saudi government itself had repeated called for the pages to be made public so that it could respond to any allegations, which it has long called unfounded.

  2. I share Antonio’s concerns – particularly as 9-11 brought the Patriot Act and the full transformation of America into a post-Constitutional national security surveillance state. Fact is, all the investigative tools necessary to uncover the plot existed in the years 2000 and 2001, and FBI field agents, doing their job, had actually uncovered the alleged future hijackers but were ordered to cease and desist. At face value, that the 9-11 plot came to fruition is the one of the greatest security breakdowns ever in recorded human history. And not a single person was ultimately accountable.

    As Larisa Alexandrovna points out, the Saudi operatives named in the released documents are either suspects or persons of interest in the 9-11 attacks – yet there is no indication what was done about this, if anything. There seems to be a half-stated position by the current administration that there’s some innocent explanation, but their vagueness does not reassure. Grumblings from some of the Congressional people involved suggest that the spin is not true, and what investigations were done were either incomplete or entirely classified. This is a major scandal.

    However, what the release does show is that information can make it to the public with sufficient political pressure coming from the Congress. The President – as the withholding of these documents was enforced by both Bush and Obama – apparently will side with the Deep State. Continued political pressure should be placed on members of Congress to clarify why these Saudi officials were allowed to leave the country, why the FBI was prevented from stopping the 9-11 attacks, and why the government has apparently been reluctant to address these issues even as it claims the right to ride roughshod over the Constitution. I don’t think members of Congress are necessarily noble persons, but there is a residual anger over the frankly unpatriotic activities surrounding the protection of the Saudis, and this could lead to more disclosures and in turn create an atmosphere conducive to the full release of JFK material in 2017.

  3. Antonio D'Antonio

    Here is how the article linked above by PHD concludes:

    US Coverup and Protection of the Saudi Government – Why?

    1. The FBI continues to withhold more than 80,000 classified pages relating to the Saudis and the attacks of 9/11. Why?
    2. The Bush administration allowed for the unprecedented evacuation of Saudi nationals, including persons of interest to investigators, in the days after 9/11. Why?
    3. All attempts to detain, question or investigate (and in some cases, attempts to charge) Saudi nationals with connections to the 9/11 attacks were shut down by the White House of the Bush Administration. Why?
    4. All attempts to conduct a formal public investigation into the 9/11 attacks were thwarted by the Bush administration, who finally conceded after public pressure and even then, would only allot a pittance for the funding. Why?
    5. All attempts to bury the Saudi role and the documents related to it as well as to whitewash the findings by the Bush and Obama administration. Why?
    6. The US naming the government of Saudi Arabia as an ally on the war on terror and then attacking Iraq, which had no ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda, was diabolical given what we now know. Why did this happen?

    So the release of the “28” pages supposedly somewhat elaborated on information that had already been leaked.
    But we are still left with all the questions mentioned above and the whys to such questions.
    My point is that since two administrations have refused to investigate further to answer all the whys and that just like the JFK assassination, anyone who questions the official story is dismissed as a crackpot, just how much information that was never made public needs to be released before anyone in a significant position of power will actually decide to authorize a legitimate investigation that actually attempts to answer all the whys and hold those responsible accountable for their actions?
    I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

    1. Antonio D’Antonio writes:
      “6. The US naming the government of Saudi Arabia as an ally on the war on terror and then attacking
      Iraq,. . . ”

      Your post omitted the so-called anthrax attack that piggybacked the 9/11 event. The anthrax letters were linked to Iraq by *confidential* sources who had enough clout to persuade ABC’s Brian Ross to air a series of completely fraudulent reports.

      But we know that mere presidents (or vice presidents) don’t possess the unfettered power and organizational skill to make something like 9/11 happen. Presidents have the power to approve, abet, propagandize and cover up that kind of event. Rearrangement of the Middle East, beginning with Iraq, would have originated as a CFR wish list before the Bush-Cheney regime grabbed power. The wish list would have been given to action groups (CIA-MIC) for strategy and execution. The white collar CFR principals would remain blissfully ignorant and insulated from the blood and guts. Nine/Eleven looks like a joint venture between US, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Main goal, IMO: eliminate autonomy of the “rogue” nations of the Middle East.

      Notice that one of our current presidential candidates is a Margaret Thatcher wannabe, former neo-con Secretary of State, soulless free trade globalist and strong proponent of Shock & Awe. Just the kinda gal to project the CFR’s agenda.

      It is probable that some administrations are less amenable than others to the dirty business of fear mongering, transparent lies and heavy-handed intimidation required to convince the rubes that it is essential to freedom-bomb sovereign nations which haven’t threatened the US. Clearly dubya’s regime wasn’t one of them.

  4. This document is full of smoking guns and damning information. It is of interest that political forces were able to eventually override the Deep State and get this released, although there are many redactions.

    “It was not the task of the Joint Inquiry to conduct the kind of extensive investigation that would be required to determined the true significance of any such alleged connections to the Saudi government …Given the serious national security implications of this information, however, the leadership of the Joint Inquiry is referring the staff’s compilation of relevant information to both the FBI and the CIA for investigative review and appropriate investigative and intelligence action. (p421)

    Did the CIA and FBI begin an “appropriate investigative and intelligence action” based on the “compilation of relevant information”? No mention of such a thing appears anywhere, even as the Inquiry established that as of late 2002 “both the FBI and CIA still have only a limited understanding of the Saudi Government’s ties to terrorist elements.” (p441) In the CNN story, the Saudi government claims there was an investigation and Saudi Arabia was exonerated. But other than reporting what the Saudi government said, the CNN report does not refer to any investigation other than this Joint Inquiry. The reason this document remained classified may have been to obscure the fact that no follow up was actually made pursuant to the recommendations.

    Starting on page 421, under the heading Possible Connections Between the September 11 Hijackers and Saudi Government Officials in the United States, the report proceeds to provide the actual details of the intelligence reports it reviewed. The following 19 pages are chock full of smoking guns, red flags, and damning paper trails. This would represent one of the biggest security failures in US history except for the Inquiry’s caveat: the intelligence agencies did not focus on the Saudis due to its status as an “ally” (p420), which refers to the fact Saudis were protected from scrutiny by an ongoing US intelligence operation run by the CIA.

  5. Antonio D'Antonio

    After seeing these “28” pages and with all the research I have done on 9/11, I can only conclude that this is nothing but a red herring meant for those who are not serious about dwelling into all the unlikely coincidences that occurred on that day, how the laws of physics ceased to exist on that day, all the unlikely first time occurrences that took place on that day, all the unlikely failures that occurred on that day and all the unlikely incompetence that was shown on that day.
    First they made this big deal about the release of these pages to get everyone to think that there was a possible smoking gun to be found in them and this is what we get?
    Sorry, but I’ve spent more than enough time looking into the many aspects about that day to fall for this.

  6. There are many parallels between the 911 attacks and the JFK assassination, and it would be useful to identify them – especially in context of the modus operandi meme put forward by Bill Kelly. Peter Dale Scott has written extensively on this topic.

    One parallel is the supposed “failure to connect the dots” by US intelligence agencies. In the JFK case, this “failure” can be understood as deliberate, centered on the manipulation of information on the Oswald visit to Mexico City in CIA cables from October 1963. But the alleged “failure” could also be seen as a cover story since the FBI was also aware of Oswald’s covert activities in 1963, as it was aware of the future hijackers in 2001.

    In both cases a false sponsor was implicated: Cuba in 1963 and Iraq in 2001.

    In both cases critical information regarding the immediate response to the events has been hidden away or destroyed. The complete Air Force One tapes from 1963. In 2001, the air traffic control tapes were deliberately destroyed that day, and the military has refused to explain their lack of action that morning.

    In both cases evidence of wider involvement beyond the designated culprits was said to be “inconclusive”, although in actuality they were either not investigated or such investigation was covered up.

    In both cases, prior incidents which should have increased security were covered up, notably the plot uncovered in Chicago in 1963 (Secret Service) and the flight school attendees in Arizona and Minnesota in 2001 (FBI).

  7. Antonio D'Antonio

    So these documents say that some of the hijackers “were in contact with, and received support or assistance from individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government,” and these individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government may have ties to terrorist groups.
    However, much of the info “remains speculative and yet to be independently verified.”
    And then it goes on to say,”Several government agencies, including the CIA and the FBI, have investigated the contents of the ’28 Pages’ and have confirmed that neither the Saudi government, nor senior Saudi officials, nor any person acting on behalf of the Saudi government provided any support or encouragement for these attacks.”
    However, “It should be clear that this Joint Inquiry has made no final determinations as to the reliability or sufficiency of the information.”

    Maybe I’m just not understanding it, but if there was speculation about Saudi involvement that hadn’t been independently verified, then why does it go on to say that several government agencies had confirmed that there was no Saudi support, but wanted to make clear that no final determination on the information was made?
    It seems to go from speculating Saudi involvement to confirming no Saudi involvement to no final determination made on Saudi involvement!
    Is anyone else confused or am I misinterpreting the information?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top