Our readers know that Saudi Arabia funded 9/11. But more Americans would be aware of this fact if Congress had fully disclosed the results of their investigation into the matter.
Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) was recently interviewed on the subject of Saudi Arabia, with comments (starting around minute 13 of this video) about the redaction from a 2002 congressional report of 28 pages about the financial links between Saudi royals and the 9/11 hijackers.
Financial analyst Bill Bergman gives his take on the subject at Boiling Frogs, including some eyebrow-raising revelations about his own anti-money laundering experience in the early 2000s while working for the Federal Reserve (with thanks to Bernard King for sending this in):
[Bob Graham] continues to express concern that a full chapter of the Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11 – a chapter reportedly discussing financial matters and the role of the Government of Saudi Arabia and related parties – remains completely redacted.
Several months ago, Sen. Graham entered a declaration in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit still unfolding in Florida. This lawsuit is seeking information about the role of the FBI and its investigation into circumstances surrounding the hasty departure of a Saudi Arabian family from the US in late August 2001. This wasn’t just any Saudi Arabian family – it included the daughter of Esam Ghazzawi, who owned the house. Ghazzawi apparently has had ties to the Saudi royal family. Court records suggest Ghazzawi may have held funds in the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International, on behalf of a Saudi Prince who died suddenly in July 2001 — a Prince whose brother was killed in late 2002. Among other things, the Sarasota family reportedly left “an empty safe” behind when they left the country.
Graham has expressed concern that the FBI withheld critical evidence from the Congress and the 9/11 Commission from this investigation, including evidence that alleged 9/11 hijackers had been visiting their house in the months before 9/11. One of those alleged hijackers reportedly had been aboard a casino boat in the months before 9/11. Casino boats carry a lot of currency, among other things.
In late 2003, I was asked to begin working in an assignment in the money laundering area at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. I underwent an FBI background investigation, received clearance to review internal Federal Reserve information, and was told I was “part of the fight against terrorism.”
While working in this role, I noticed a few things that looked pretty suspicious, including a surge in currency circulating outside of banks – billions of dollars in one hundred dollar bills — in July and August 2001. Anyone concerned that their bank accounts might be at risk of being frozen and seized after 9/11 would have an incentive to get out of dollar-denominated accounts, and may have been withdrawing large amounts of currency. After asking related questions, I was told I had committed an “egregious breach of protocol” asking the questions. My job was eliminated a month later.
Well, I still have questions. Among them – Were any of those bills in that empty safe? How many of those bills are in those 28 pages?
Granted, a billion dollars is hard to stuff into a suitcase. But the empty safe is a symbol of a critical element of a ‘dog that didn’t bark’ on 9/11. We still have no evidence of any investigation into the surge in currency in circulation in mid-2001 – who withdrew it and why, and whether any of those parties were related to, or even responsible for, the events of 9/11.