Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Bob Graham, a former US Senator who, in addition to co-chairing the Congressional inquiry into 9/11, was chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, disputes the FBI denials. He has long believed that there was Saudi support for the 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were subjects of the kingdom."

Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham has spent years trying to expose the links between Saudi officials and the 9/11 hijackers. (photo: Hyungwon Kang/Reuters)
Former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham has spent years trying to expose the links between Saudi officials and the 9/11 hijackers. (photo: Hyungwon Kang/Reuters)



Saudi Oil Executive Linked to 9/11 Hijackers

By Anthony Summers, Neil Tweedie and Dan Christensen, The Telegraph UK

21 February 12

 

A Saudi Arabian accused of associating with several of the September 11 hijackers and who disappeared from his home in the United States a few weeks before the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, is in London working for his country's state oil company.

bdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife Anoud left three cars at their luxurious home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida - one of them new - and flew to Saudi Arabia in August 2001. The refrigerator was full of food; furniture and clothing were left behind; and the swimming pool water was still circulating.

Security records of cars passing through a checkpoint at the Prestancia gated community indicated that Mr al-Hijji's home, 4224 Escondito Circle, had been visited a number of times by Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 19-strong hijack team, who piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre in 2001.

The logs also indicated that Marwan Al-Shehhi, who crashed United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower, and Ziad Jarrah, who was at the controls of United Airlines Flight 93 when it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, had visited the house.

All three men had trained to fly at Venice Airport, which is 19 miles from Sarasota.

A US counter-terrorist agent told The Daily Telegraph: "The registration numbers of vehicles that had passed through the Prestancia community's north gate in the months before 9/11, coupled with the identification documents shown by incoming drivers on request, showed that Mohamed Atta and several of his fellow hijackers, and another Saudi suspect still at large, had visited 4224 Escondito Circle."

The suspect was Adnan Shukrijumah, an al-Qaeda operative who is on the FBI's Most Wanted list, with a $5million bounty on his head.A decade after the world's worst terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 3,000 people, Mr al-Hijji is resident in London, working for the European subsidiary of Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state oil company. Described as a career counsellor, he is based in the offices of Aramco Overseas Company UK Limited and lives in an expensive flat in central London.

In email correspondence with the Telegraph, Mr al-Hijji strongly denied any involvement in the plot, writing: "I have neither relation nor association with any of those bad people/criminals and the awful crime they did. 9/11 is a crime against the USA and all humankind and I'm very saddened and oppressed by these false allegations.

"I love the USA. My kids were born there, I went to college and university there, I spent a good portion of my life there and I love it."

Mr al-Hijji's account is supported by the FBI, which has stated: "At no time did the FBI develop evidence that connected the family members to any of the 9/11 hijackers … and there was no connection found to the 9/11 plot.''

Bob Graham, a former US senator who, in addition to co-chairing the congressional inquiry into 9/11, was chairman of the US senate intelligence committee at the time, disputes the FBI denials. He has long believed that there was Saudi support for the 19 terrorists, 15 of whom were subjects of the kingdom. He cites two secret documents to which he has recently had access.

The first document, Graham says, is "not consistent with the public statements of the FBI that there was no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudis at the Sarasota home. Both documents indicate that the investigation was not the robust inquiry claimed by the FBI."

Mr al-Hijji, 38, moved with his family to Britain in 2003, setting up home in a rented four-bedroom detached house in the Southampton suburb of Totton. His stay there appears to have been uneventful.

The al-Hijjis' abrupt departure from Sarasota aroused the suspicion of their next-door neighbour, Patrick Gallagher. He emailed the FBI within two days of 9/11 to report the disappearance of the couple and their young children.

Reports released recently by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement refer to the "suspicious manner and timing" of the family's departure.

One document states: "In mid-August 2001 the above subjects purchased a new vehicle and renewed the registration on several other vehicles. On Aug 27 2001 a moving truck appeared and moved the subjects out of the house. Left behind were the vehicles and numerous personal belongings, including food, medicine, bills, baby clothing etc."

The document goes on to state that Mr al-Hijji and Esam Ghazzawi, his father-in-law and the owner of the Escondito Circle house, had been "on the FBI watch list" prior to 9/11.

Mr al-Hijji described the allegations against him as "just cheap talk" and denied having abandoned his home in undue haste, explaining: "No, no, no. Absolutely not true. We were trying to secure the [Aramco] job. It was a good opportunity."

He said his wife and children followed him out to Saudi Arabia a few weeks after he left. She and his American-born mother-in-law had been questioned by the FBI when they returned to the United States to settle the family's affairs.

But he was not questioned when he returned to America for a two-month period in 2005.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-12 # CandH 2012-02-21 16:04
"'A shot across the bows' derives from the naval practice of firing a cannon shot across the bows of an opponent's ship to show them that you are prepared to do battle. The first mention of it I can find in print is this piece from the Wisconsin Democrat, December 1939, reprinted from the UK paper The London Metropolitan:

"In a very brief space we neared our victim, a large merchantman, whose appearance promised at once an easy conquest and a rich booty. At a signal from Stamar, a shot was fired across her bows to bring her to. She immediately hoisted a white flag." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/16900.html
 
 
+2 # L mac 2012-02-22 17:56
Quoting
"'A shot across the bows' derives from the naval practice of firing a cannon shot across the bows of an opponent's ship to show them that you are prepared to do battle. The first mention of it I can find in print is this piece from the Wisconsin Democrat, December 1939, reprinted from the UK paper The London Metropolitan:

"In a very brief space we neared our victim, a large merchantman, whose appearance promised at once an easy conquest and a rich booty. At a signal from Stamar, a shot was fired across her bows to bring her to. She immediately hoisted a white flag." http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/16900.html

Huh?
 
 
-27 # uglysexy 2012-02-21 16:53
oh stop...truther/falsers
 
 
-20 # uglysexy 2012-02-21 16:56
although maybe he should be renditioned
 
 
+63 # RMDC 2012-02-21 17:08
Well the FBI has a long record on covering up the movements around the US by the 19 suspected hijackers. FBI field officers who reported suspicious behavior by the 19 were told to get off the case and their files were destroyed. Clearly the FBI is part of the cover-up, as it has been in very many high profile crimes in the US such as the JFK murder, the banking fraud of 2008, the Watergate scandal, and the murders of 100s of Native American and African American activists in the 60s and 70s.

There's no doubt that the Saudi government was up to its nose in the 9-11 plot. So was the Pakistani intelligence agency. But both intelligence agencies are really subsidiaries of the CIA. If they did something like transfer cash to Atta and others, they did it on orders from the CIA.

Any sane person by now knows that 9-11 was an inside job, a false flag operation. The proof keeps trickling in. But there will never be a competent investigation by any agency of the US regime. In fact, there will be just the opposite -- continued cover ups.
 
 
-16 # DaveM 2012-02-21 20:56
An "argument from intimidation", that is to say, an alleged argument based on "any sane person knows that....", "only idiots believe that...." essentially invalidates itself. An effective argument is based on demonstrable facts and will withstand attempted refutation and independent rational examination. A related technique is to say something along the lines of "well, they laughed at Beethoven and he was a genius. You're laughing at me, therefore I'm a genius". To which the only rational response is: "you are not Beethoven". Though I imagine one could ask the arguer to take a turn at the piano as well.
 
 
+19 # pernsey 2012-02-21 21:26
DaveM, Im giving you a thumbs down based on that I have no idea what your talking about!
 
 
+5 # healthnpeace 2012-02-22 06:07
DaveM, I see the logic of your reasoning (and I'm neither a genius nor laughing). Maybe RMDC is over-generalizing. His post is attractive, but that doesn't mean it's true...
 
 
+15 # Glen 2012-02-22 06:47
Perhaps, Dave, RMDC should have said - any person who has taken the time to do the research... And believe me there is plenty of evidence to support his assertion.
 
 
+11 # phrixus 2012-02-22 07:17
Excellent points. Conclusions and statements of fact should be based upon demonstrable empirical evidence, not "beliefs," suppositions, delusions or other hysteria (WMD, terrorist training camps, hallowed ground, etc). Perhaps a strong dose of logical criteria would have prevented some unnecessary wars.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-02-22 10:41
Check and checkmate. Nice.
 
 
+5 # NOMINAE 2012-02-22 13:59
Quoting
An "argument from intimidation", that is to say, an alleged argument based on "any sane person knows that....", "only idiots believe that...." essentially invalidates itself. An effective argument is based on demonstrable facts and will withstand attempted refutation and independent rational examination. A related technique is to say something along the lines of "well, they laughed at Beethoven and he was a genius. You're laughing at me, therefore I'm a genius". To which the only rational response is: "you are not Beethoven". Though I imagine one could ask the arguer to take a turn at the piano as well.


You are absolutely correct, DaveM. The commenters on any RSN thread rarely have a passing acquaintance with the Laws of Formal Logic. How else to explain the negatives on your observation ?

They actually amount to "thumbs down" on the Laws of Formal Logic itself. Thinking from emotion, rather than from intellect.

The "thumbs down" don't "LIKE" the Laws of Formal Logic. Sorry Kids, nobody cares whether you "Like" the Laws of Formal Logic or the Laws of Gravity either. The laws simply are what they are, immune to petulant opinion.
 
 
-1 # RMDC 2012-02-23 06:04
NOMINAE -- there just is not space for much formal logic. Most of what appears in these RSN dialog boxes is only commentary and opinion. This is not the place for formal arguments. Commentary and opinion are good things in themselves. So is formal logic. But they appear in different contexts. There are many books which to make formal fact based arguments on the false flag side. Their facts get critiqued and challenged all the time. That's all good. That is the process of reasoning through an hypothesis.

You are suggesting the logical fallacy of category error by suggesting that anyone could present a fact based argument in the RSN response boxes.
 
 
+1 # NOMINAE 2012-02-24 01:54
@RMDC

Thinking from a premise to a logical conclusion takes no more time or space than an emotional rant based upon uninformed opinion.

What used to be known as "common sense" is simply not that "common" anymore.

Common sense, and the methods of formal logic go hand in hand if allowed to do so, and they represent the difference between trained critical thinking and knee-jerk emotionally-driven opinion.

This is not a matter of space.

And, to your last point, any argument that is not based upon the facts that make up a valid premise is automatically logically invalid. It's always refreshing to brush up on a little Plato from time to time.

"Argument" does not mean bickering. It means the logical process from premise to conclusion, and it was developed to help the human being discover "holes" that gather in all of our intellectual processes.

It was also developed as a weapon against fast-talkers and shysters.

A logical conclusion can be stated in one sentence.
 
 
-1 # barbaratodish 2012-02-22 20:10
Quoting
An "argument from intimidation", that is to say, an alleged argument based on "any sane person knows that....", "only idiots believe that...." essentially invalidates itself. An effective argument is based on demonstrable facts and will withstand attempted refutation and independent rational examination. A related technique is to say something along the lines of "well, they laughed at Beethoven and he was a genius. You're laughing at me, therefore I'm a genius". To which the only rational response is: "you are not Beethoven". Though I imagine one could ask the arguer to take a turn at the piano as well.

Even so called "demonstrable facts" are subject to interpretation! Perhaps real logic is interpretation free from the drama and ego in interpretation?
 
 
0 # RMDC 2012-02-23 06:00
DaveM -- "Any sane person" is not an argument. It is an appeal to people to think this thing through and to look at the facts that are available for themselves. It is not possible to make a fact based argument in the short space provided here. I was only calling on all people who think they are "sane" to speak out about the cover ups we are constantly presented by the FBI and other government agencies.

There's a big difference between a call to similar minded people and an argument.
 
 
+34 # 1984 2012-02-21 20:41
No surprise there. The Saudi's, our dear friends, were the main highjackers.
 
 
+24 # E-Mon 2012-02-21 23:13
This is what I will never understand about the "official" 911 story. The alleged 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.... So we exact vengeance on Afghanistan??..... And then Iraq of all places??? It's like Argentina attacks us so go invade Mexico. WTF!? According to the head of the FBI Osama was never anything more than a suspect. Never any iron clad smoking gun evidence that would have stood up in a court of law. A patsy like Oswald, set up to take the fall. Just like they were broadcasting Oswald's description about 10-15 minutes after the event.... Really? I'd like to know who gave the media that info... Same scenario, except with a different face.
 
 
+21 # RLF 2012-02-22 05:05
Who asked them to do it? Seems like George bushs presidency was going down in flames until 9/11. He and Cheney are just this depraved.
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2012-02-22 11:21
RLF, nice... I think of all this stuff as just a natural ebb and flow of the power of wealth. At this moment wealth is in deeply embedded in control, so we aren't gonna see any real intense investigation into what happened on 9/11/2001. From their point of view, they got the answer that benefited them and the answer they wanted, therefore: CASE CLOSED, and anyone talking about it is potentially suspect.
 
 
+35 # Gordon K 2012-02-21 21:47
The BBC reported on September 23, 2001, that several of the men the FBI identified as hijackers were, in fact, alive and well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

This, of course, makes the whole issue even more complex, but there are endless reasons for rejecting the official 9/11 story as an absurd fantasy.
 
 
+15 # Gordon K 2012-02-21 21:47
The BBC reported on September 23, 2001, that several of the men the FBI identified as hijackers were, in fact, alive and well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

This, of course, makes the whole issue even more complex, but there are endless reasons for rejecting the official 9/11 story as an absurd fantasy.
 
 
+9 # jcdav 2012-02-22 07:09
757 first fly by wire comm ac...could it have been flown remotrely (a'la drone) and there was no one aboard? Who would do such a thing? Who would have the capability?
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2012-02-22 11:27
jcdavQuoting
Who would do such a thing? Who would have the capability?


Who is culpable: long story short those who control the US Gov't: i.e. OIL WEALTH. To what lengths would they go? Well they have a mandate to create profit... any losses of life are merely externalities, costs the corporation doesn't have to pay for so the cost is literally passed on to your gov't and it's people, you.
 
 
+23 # reiverpacific 2012-02-21 21:57
Remember the exit plane laid on for "Significant Saudis" including some of Bin-Laden's relatives after 9-11 out of Lexington KY's Bluegrass Field, when the entire US airspace was shut down?
And the appalling record of both the FBI and CIA in covering up everything from the Warren Report and before, to the truth about East Timor and far beyond and to this day.
I would tend to venture that ANYTHING they put out on the owner-media public airwaves (including PBS these days) should be disbelieved and in fact reversed in message and intent to arrive at an approximation of the truth.
This is no different and you just have to be possessed of a little common-sense to see the Saudi connection -and why they were screened out of all culpability.
And to "Dave M"; I don't have room to post all the links, as usual too torturous for us and the space we have on RSN. Do y'r own digging like I did and am still doing, if you care enough and are not amnesiac like most of the US consumers of the owner-media.
 
 
+18 # Archie1954 2012-02-21 22:30
I've often wondered why Bush of incompetency fame assisted his wealthy and politically connected Saudi friends who were visiting in the US at the time of 911, to leave the country by air when all other flights were cancelled for several days.
 
 
+11 # futhark 2012-02-22 02:31
The question now is when will Mr al-Hijji be visited by an American drone aircraft in UK airspace or be required to host a gathering of Navy Seals?
 
 
+24 # stonecutter 2012-02-22 05:36
The proverbial "tip of the iceberg". If there's any factual truth to the claims in this piece-and the abrupt exodus from the Sarasota house by this Saudi Arabian seems like a very warm, if not smoking gun-what more has been left under- or uninvestigated, covered up or otherwise sanitized by the FBI and the Justice Department?

It has always amazed me how many Americans are content to swallow whole the fiction provided by the 9/11 Commission, to simply deny all the bald inconsistencies , scientific anomalies, unanswered questions and political doublespeak. This kind of willful ignorance was equally true toward the Warren Commission report 50 years ago, not to mention the investigations into the murders of MLK and RFK.

I'm always reminded of Jack Nicholson's arrogant but blunt diatribe in "A Few Good Men", "You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!". Our shadow government relies on this American trait in general, and especially in the case of major catastrophes, with 9/11 at the top of the list. Perhaps this revelation, and Bob Graham's gutsy opposition to the FBI, may crack open the crypt on this one, finally. As long as we need Saudi oil, however, I would bet heavily against it.
 
 
+13 # bbaldwin 2012-02-22 06:14
Get Bob Graham back into govenment. We need his statemanshop and high ethics he brings with his personality.

I have long felt that the FBI was our own secret police. So, why are we shielding the Saudi Govenment? MONEY & OIL. The day will come when oil and gas are no longer needed in our country, and watch the Saudi's run for cover then.
 
 
+23 # dick 2012-02-22 06:28
On matters as grave as these, those who comment should refrain from narcissistic wisecracking and focus like a laser on the issues. How can a populace that claims to loathe 9-11 NOT demand answers to the Senator's questions? Would we rather hate innocent Muslims while coddling & enabling complicit officials here at home? This one, like many other items we whine about, is ON US. We have to do more than tweet for attention.
 
 
+6 # bluepilgrim 2012-02-22 09:33
Al Qaeda has always been an asset of the CIA, and many Saudis part of the US empire and the 'shadow government' of the neocons, banksters, and warmongers (the old 'military industrial complex).

A lot of people have figured this out some time back, while the media keeps reporting these little gems as if they were surprising, and politicians continue to prevaracate, continuing to work on fooling the American people.
 
 
+4 # cokacoa2 2012-02-22 11:47
The same corporate power that keeps us from developing a serious alternative energy policy thus making oil the only real game in town, is the mysterious force that keeps all of us, no matter how ingeniously we seek truth, perpetually in the dark.
Our government picks up innocent people off the street and incarcerates them but leaves this Mr. Hijji scott free?
 
 
+4 # Pwarren 2012-02-22 12:15
Try Alan Arkin/Dana Priests new book
Top Secret America, and then we'll see how you think.
It is quite a read. 824,000 human beings with "top secret" clearance. Didn't Ben Franklin say that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
Good Luck.
 
 
-1 # frankscott 2012-02-22 18:06
logical...the saudis, up to their armpits in collusion with the usa, wanted to destroy the twin towers to, um, sell more petro in rebuilding them?...

makes sense, if you use novocaine as a recreational drug...

and why would this great saudi conspirator who allegedly ran away to avoid detection (?) be so easy to find now, out in the open wherever he is working at present?

logic and critical thinking are not the friends of fantasy, as will be explained by one of the chosen, special mentalities who seem to understand these things better than most of us but not understand that they help keep us a divided and horribly negative force in the world by seeking fantasy ego gratification instead of material social change...
 
 
+1 # jsgammato 2012-02-22 20:27
The Saudis wanted Saddam Hussein neutralized. They got it.
As the Romans asked: "Qui bono?"
Who else profited? Halliburton did OK, and the rest of US oil interests. The military, and the congressmen from military-heavy states. The great Federal power grab of the PATRIOT Act, etc.
Think for a minute and you can think of a few more who stood to gain from our "pro-life" govenment bombing innocent Iraqi women and children.
 
 
+1 # ganymede 2012-02-23 09:05
This much we know. The Bush regime deliberately put its guard down and refused to acknowledge that plans were afoot to crash planes into buildings. Security agents in this country and governments abroad as well as exPres Clinton were shouting at Bush/Cheney to take action. They chose not to because an attack on this country is exactly what they wanted. Eventually, the truth will out and it will be yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party. How ignorant can we be to not understand that, while it may not have been an 'inside' job, 9/11 was definitely aided and abetted by the criminal neo-con cabal as well as Bush/Cheney. They had all to gain in solidifying their control over our country.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.