Moussaoui sworn statement names al Qaeda's donors?

"In the late-'90s, Moussaoui claims, he was tasked by Osama bin Laden to create a digital database cataloguing al Qaeda's donors. Every day for two or three months, he claims, he entered names of the group's donors into a Toshiba computer along with how much they gave".

"CNN cannot independently confirm the claims Moussaoui makes in his new testimony, which was made under oath as part of a brief filed in opposition to a motion to dismiss a case against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike a deposition, Moussaoui was not subjected to cross-examination by the defendants' lawyers".



Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Intelligence Community: Allies Against 9/11 Transparency?

Robert Parry of Consortium News investigates further

That was a good read

Thanks for posting. I hadn't seen this website before. 

This story is clear evidence of how

classification is abused by government officials for their own pathetic purposes. Secrecy enabled CIA officials like Alfreda Bikowsky to obstruct the investigation of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar and then find herself in a position to oversee the torture of Khaled el-Masri.


Clearly all oversight has failed when Bikowsky and her colleagues do not have to explain why they got almost 3,000 people murdered on 9/11. What is really sad is the way journalists play along with this distorted reality. For example why didn't Joby Warrick explain CIA conduct in his book about the suicide bombing attack at CIA station Camp Chapman? Why didn't documentary director Greg Barker explain CIA conduct when he made a film about how Alec Station agents were blamed for not preventing 9/11?

Colleen Rowley comments on Consortium News article

"My guess is that there is probably at least some if not some significant truth in Moussaoui’s information, although the specifics might not be totally accurate. For instance even if Bin Laden made up a “donor list,” there’s a chance that list wasn’t completely accurate or became outdated, the same way political campaigns’ donor lists end up not being accurate. Even so, it’s shockingly wrong that the 9-11 Commission Report really ignored this entire avenue of Saudi support for al Qaeda, even though the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry did pursue it (i.e. in the 28 pages that are still being withheld). I’m told by those who studied the 9-11 Commission Report that Zelikow and Dieter Snell were responsible for thwarting investigation of Saudi Arabia’s involvement.

Additionally, the FBI was stopped from even attempting to interview Moussaoui on 9/11 and on the early morning of 9/12 (when I was told by FBI-DOJ officials in the DC command post that the situation was no longer an “emergency”) and of course continuing thereafter. Even though Moussaoui almost certainly knew of other plots (like his London crony, shoebomber Richard Reid’s plot which nearly brought a plane down 3 months later).

Can anyone get their head around the totally conflicting official arguments that U.S. officials were so panic-struck about imminent attack that they had to begin torturing those detainees captured months and years later, after 9-11 (the day they said the emergency ended) in order to get information to prevent another attack while we were stopped from interviewing this guy from 9/11 onwards (until just now)?! (And now it’s only private attorneys doing so, not our government which has constantly promised to pull all strings to keep us safe.)

And now that ISIS and other Qaeda spin-offs are really mounting their killing machine, the US switches its “capture or kill” policy to sole reliance upon “kill lists” and aerial and drone bombing, forgoing all capturing and interviewing of anyone who might have info of future plots.

Maybe if one’s generous, it can all be chalked up to “fog of war” or gross incompetence but their “global war on terror” arguments are mutually contradictory and make no sense".

The arguments are contradictory and self serving

I love the way the political/media establishment is acting like it makes sense for the Saudi involvement to still be unresolved over a decade later. We are told the Obama administration is reviewing the information. What sort of gargabe response is that?


Evidently the public is supposed to believe it was ok for US officials to order the intelligence community to back of al Qaeda suspects before 9/11. It was ok for the same officials to orchestrate a cover-up after the attacks. Then it was ok for the same officials to exploit the attacks for all sorts of political and financial gain. Then it was ok for the same officials to blame the attack on Iraq and lead the country into a quagmire occupation that seems like it was designed to fail. That is the most credible explanation based on documentaries like No End in Sight and the book The Bush Agenda by Antonia Juhasz. And now after all this corruption we are told the Saudi aspect is worth a second look.


The contempt for the public is astonishing.

Claims Against Saudis Cast New Light on Secret Pages of 9/11 Rep

Claims Against Saudis Cast New Light on Secret Pages of 9/11 Report

New York Times By CARL HULSEFEB. 4, 2015

A recording of CNN's

coverage of this story, that's slightly different to the one embedded in the CNN article:



And on MSNBC too

I also made this short video

. . . I thought it might be a good clip to have easily available.

(No subject)

Refreshing to hear


 . . . especially from 04:43 onwards, where the host of the show brings up the issue of how 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"  will view the release of 28 pages. Now, how many times have we heard a show host ask a question like this, only for the person being questioned to seize the opportunity with both hands to overtly distance him or herself from such "conspiracy theorists" often by means of maligning them? But as you can hear by his response, Walter Jones does nothing of the sort - which is obviously not surprising in this case - but still, I did find it refreshing to listen to.