RawStory: FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

By Larisa Alexandrovna - Thursday February 28, 2008

Hijacker had post-9/11 flights scheduled, files say

Newly-released records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the 9/11 Commission’s report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and raise fresh questions about the role of Saudi government officials in connection to the hijackers.

The nearly 300 pages of a Federal Bureau of Investigation timeline used by the 9/11 Commission as the basis for many of its findings were acquired through a FOIA request filed by Kevin Fenton, a 26 year old translator from the Czech Republic. The FBI released the 298-page “hijacker timeline” Feb. 4.

The FBI timeline reveals that alleged hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi, who was aboard the United Airlines flight which crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, had booked a future flight to San Francisco. He also had a ticket for a trip from Casablanca to Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia.

Though referenced repeatedly in the footnotes of the final 9/11 Commission report, the timeline has not previously been made available to the public.

The FBI timeline is dated Nov. 14, 2003 but appears to have been put together earlier (since the last date mentioned in the document is Oct. 22, 2001) and was provided to the 9/11 Commission during its 2003 investigation. The final Commission report cites the FBI timeline 52 times.
Post Sept. 11, 2001 flights

The FBI timeline reveals that Al-Ghamdi, the alleged United hijacker, was booked onto several flights scheduled for after the 9/11 attacks, a piece of information not documented in the Commission’s final report. According to the FBI timeline, Al-Ghamdi was booked on another United Airlines flight on the very day of the attack.

On page 288 under an entry pertaining to “H AlGhamdi,” the FBI timeline reads: "Future flight. Scheduled to depart Los Angeles International Airport for San Francisco International Airport on UA 7950."


Complete 911 Timeline Analysis

Complete 911 Timeline

"2/14/2008: Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission

Latest Findings Raise New Questions about Hijackers and Suggest Incomplete Investigation

A contributor to the History Commons has obtained a 298-page document entitled Hijackers Timeline (Redacted) from the FBI, subsequent to a Freedom of Information Act request. The document was a major source of information for the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Though the commission cited the timeline 52 times in its report, it failed to include some of the document’s most important material.

The printed document is dated November 14, 2003, but appears to have been compiled in mid-October 2001 (the most recent date mentioned in it is October 22, 2001), when the FBI was just starting to understand the backgrounds of the hijackers, and it contains almost no information from the CIA, NSA, or other agencies. This raises questions as to why the 9/11 Commission relied so heavily on such an early draft for their information about the hijackers.


Some credit cards used by the hijackers were still used in the US after 9/11. For instance, a credit card jointly owned by Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi was used twice on September 15. This helps confirm news reports from late 2001 that hijacker credit cards were used on the East Coast as late as early October 2001. At the time, a government official said that while some of the cards might have been stolen, “We believe there are additional people out there” who helped the hijackers.


Hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari lost his plane ticket just before 9/11. He reported it lost on September 8, and picked a replacement ticket up from the American Airlines terminal at Logan airport in Boston the next day. The US government has generally promoted what one FBI official has called “the Superman scenario” - the idea that the hijackers made no mistakes. For instance, in 2004 one FBI official claimed, “These guys were pros. For us to have done anything, these guys had to make a mistake. And they didn’t.” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423
Arabesque: 911 Truth

The credit card thing...

Is an interesting trick.

Who Is? Archives

post-9/11 "hijacker" credit card use

Yea, I'd like to hear the explanation for that one. I guess it's just one of those things that apparently are not worth investigating or even mentioning in the 9/11 report.
Arabesque: 911 Truth


Whole "use an alternate source for the whereabouts of the two men, when the FBI’s own timeline said they were in San Diego by Jan. 15, the same day as their arrival in the US" trick is interesting as well. For a commission mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11.

Who Is? Archives

So Prince Bandar (the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia) sent

money to Omar al-Bayoumi, an FBI-protected Saudi who was living with two CIA-funded, U.S. military-trained Saudi "hijackers" (Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar) in San Diego. And these funds were "laundered" in a pathetic, half-assed attempt by processing the checks through their respective wives' (Bandar's and Bayoumi's) bank accounts. Wow, I learn something new everyday. Thanks to Ms. Alexandrova for being a real journalist.

On September 13, 2001...

Bush and Saudi Ambassador Discuss Evacuating Saudis and Terrorist Renditions

President Bush and Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, hold a private meeting at the White House. Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice, and Bandar’s aide Rihab Massoud also attend. [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80] Bandar is so close to the Bush family that he is nicknamed “Bandar Bush.” Sen. Bob Graham (D) later will note that while little is known about what is discussed in the meeting, mere hours later, the first flights transporting Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family are in the air (see September 13, 2001). Over the next week, they will be taken to several gathering points, and then flown back to Saudi Arabia, apparently without first being properly interviewed by the FBI (see September 14-19, 2001). Graham will say, “Richard Clarke, then the White House’s counterterrorism tsar, told me that he was approached by someone in the White House seeking approval for the departures. He did not remember who made the request… The remaining question is where in the White House the request originated, and how.” Graham will imply that, ultimately, the request originated from this meeting between Bush and Bandar. [Graham and Nussbaum, 2004, pp. 105-107] Others also will later suggest that it was Bandar who pushed for and helped arrange the flights. [Vanity Fair, 10/2003; Fifth Estate, 10/29/2003 pdf file] Bob Woodward will mention in a 2006 book that during the meeting, Bush tells Bandar, “If we [capture] somebody and we can’t get them to cooperate, we’ll hand them over to you.” Woodward will later comment, “With these words, the president casually expressed what became the US government’s rendition policy-the shifting of terrorist suspects from country to country for interrogation.… Though the Saudis denied it, the CIA believe the Saudis tortured terrorist suspects to make them talk.” [Woodward, 2006, pp. 80]

I know that if I were President of the United States, and 2,973+ people were murdered on my watch, one of the first things I would want to do is help those that may have been involved. *sarcasm*

Who Is? Archives


Very obviously, and in ways that many here will quickly understand in contexts not likely to be pursued, let alone grasped, by reporters who, god willing, may suffer the epiphany of, "Holy crap, what do we really know about 9/11 after all?" this story is huge.
It's a clear and visible crack in the high and wide wall constructed by our government's official lies, the Commission's official coverup, and the mainstream media's protracted oblivion. The wall that separates average citizens (who have not been "paying attention") from a truth that is hidden all around them, often in plain sight.

If we can work to get this story reported on, and followed-up on, many new voices will join us in our demand for a new and independent investigation. (To saddle up my own hobby-horse for a moment: I hope the Truth Movement can unite to call for this independent investigation louder than any assertions about an "inside job". It takes a lot of catching up for people not to react in knee-jerk fashion to this charge, regardless of its merits.)

We need an independent investigation to arrive at this conclusion, and it will. By examining the evidence in the sunshine of popular attention and mass education. I pray that this story gets some traction. We must help that happen, by yet again writing letters and emails and making phone calls.

With all the evidence that's available, ANY story that can break through the fortress-like barriers of mainstream television news, CAN lead to widespread demands for a new and independent investigation. And it will be this demand that produces the results we all want to see. The "new and independent investigation" demand is our greatest source for hope, short of sudden, high-profile confessions.

"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon


here and here.

Good article, but I was

Good article, but I was almost in shock (but after what they did on 911, and now the clearing of the picture of why) with this video in the digg posts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo
Paul O'Neil (Treasury Secretary) on 60 Minutes who went on record that Bush's *first* National Security Council meeting spoke vehemently about regime change in Iraq (8 months before 9/11).
It was topic "A" according to O'Neil.
BTW, nice work with the reddit post yesterday George Washington.

Nice effort at distraction...f*** off!!

"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest." - Benjamin Franklin

That river in egypt that isn't a river in egypt

she just keeps movin' along . .


The Classics of Robert Baer - recommended reading

This looks good, some interesting details, important because it shows a cover-up and more info to expose the hoax Ommission Report.

But I still cringe at the involvement of Robert Baer. I just don't buy it that he is for anything except something that most of us are not for. Sure, he spoke out on torture. So what? Wouldn't anyone? It's hardly a bonus if someone can bother to say no to known war crimes.

But here's why he gives me the creeps:

Chaim Kupferberg, author of an article titled, "CIA's Robert Baer Spins Official Legend of 9-11," describes Baer's start this way:
"After publishing his widely acclaimed book, 'See No Evil,' Baer established himself as the mainstream media's "go-to" guy when making the case for pre-9/11 complacency and opportunistic blindness."

Here's how Baer described the Commission report in an interview in 2004:

ROBERT BAER: I think it's fairly bland. Most of the information in this report has already been leaked to the press in one form or another. There's no particularly important revelations. And it's also a report that avoids controversy.

No revelations. Don't bother to look at it. Yawn. Go look over there instead . . .

Here are some quotes from his original attack piece on Griffin that was featured in the Nation:

"Conspiracy theories are hard to kill."

"For a start, Griffin simply cannot accept that our national security system totally failed all on its own on September."

"KSM, as we now know, would go on to mastermind 9/11."

"What's notable about Griffin's take on these events is how easily he leaps to larger evils, a conspiracy at the top. Griffin is a thoughtful, well-informed theologian who before September 11 probably would not have gone anywhere near a conspiracy theory. But the catastrophic failures of that awful day are so implausible and the lies about Iraq so blatant, he feels he has no choice but to recycle some of the wilder conspiracy theories"

"Someone, after all, should be asking in print why our foreign policy seems to have fallen into the hands of some malevolent band of Marx Brothers."

"Yes, the CIA was formed, in essence, to conduct and foment conspiracies, but even within the vaulted offices of Langley, a secret like that couldn't have lasted twenty-four hours before it had been leaked"

"Like most conspiracies, it has the allure of a deeper truth, but experience tells me that although this Administration is dedicated to keeping the truth away from the average citizen, it could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter and kept it a secret. Especially when so many people would have to have been involved."

Wait . . let's try that one again.

"it could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter"


Is this G man doing his job, or what?

Here's the take-home-message:

"This is what I think happened on September 11. The trillions we put into national security were wasted. The military's early warning system, the CIA's and the FBI's ability to collect and process intelligence, and the White House's ability to deal with a national emergency never adapted to the new threat, terrorism, and the end of the cold war. Fail-safe procedures fail routinely, and depending on them is anything but safe. It wasn't a conspiracy of silence that allowed Osama bin Laden to succeed so spectacularly in his mission; it was a confluence of incompetence, spurious assumptions and self-delusion on a grand scale."

Wait, let's run that one past again . . .

"The trillions we put into national security were wasted."

I guess they were just burnt up in thin air then, huh?

That must be why a million Iraqis are now dead who weren't dead when Baer wrote this, why over 3000 more Americans are now dead, but also why Bush's buddies with the oil companies are richer than any corporation ever in the history of the planet, and why all of our phones and emails are now "wire-tapped" so the rich can get richer still . . .

It's all just a big mess, isn't it? All those trillions just thrown at "nothing".

Funny how the billionaires in control of the government just keep bungling everything and yet STILL are managing to funnel BILLIONS into Iraq -- into the hands of their buddies like Blackwater and Halliburton and Exxon -- every month, from you and me to those bungling billionaires, because we apparently are not as incompetent as they are.


It's defies the laws of physics, especially when it gets down to details like the apartment numbers. We forget the bigger picture, the history, what it is that probably really happened that day . . . because I just don't buy incompetence. So don't let it go there.

You know what they say: Once al-CIA-duh, always al-CIA-duh

(Ray McGovern may be an exception to that rule)


Good Post.