FBI Disparages Its Own 9/11 Report

Florida News Outlet Sues to Find out Why

911 Review Commission
Director Comey discusses the 9/11 Review Commission’s findings.  Photo credit: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Even though a Florida news site and the FBI itself linked different 9/11 hijackers to a prominent Saudi family living in Sarasota, the Bureau’s review commission on the attack said there is no evidence such a connection existed. Now, as the discussion about the infamous “28 pages” is heating up, the news site is seeking answers from the FBI on how it arrived at its conclusion.

The not-for-profit investigative news website Florida Bulldog filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act against the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking records about the findings of the FBI’s secretive 2015 9/11 Review Commission report. The FBI’s report, in part, claims to refute explosive evidence uncovered by The Bulldog that Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers had multiple contacts with a prominent Saudi family living in Sarasota.

The family left the country abruptly two weeks before the attack, having abandoned all manner of personal items like clothing, furniture, and cars — even food was left in the refrigerator.

The connection was first uncovered by The Bulldog’s Dan Christensen working with investigative author Anthony Summers, who determined through multiple sources that Atta and others routinely visited the upscale residence in Sarasota.

Part of the evidence they uncovered in their years long investigation included a 2002 FBI investigative report obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FBI report noted “many connections” between the Saudi family and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

(Building on The Bulldog’s investigation, WhoWhatWhy found even more explosive evidence linking the Sarasota family who fled the country two weeks before 9/11, to members of the Saudi royal family.)

911 Review Commission Report

Photo credit: Federal Bureau of Investigation (PDF)

Ironically, the FBI’s Review Commission report takes particular aim at its own 2002 investigative report, declaring the claims in it “unsubstantiated” and that the report was “poorly written and inaccurate.”

Notably, the FBI only acknowledged this part of their investigation, even to congressional investigators, after The Bulldog first revealed these connections. The FBI has consistently maintained that they found no link between the Saudis living in Sarasota and the 9/11 hijackers — a determination supposedly strengthened by the weight of this Review Commission’s findings.

The Bulldog’s lawsuit seeks to obtain the underlying records used as the basis of the Review Commission’s finding that the 2002 FBI report was wrong.

According to the complaint written by The Bulldog’s attorney Thomas Julin, the “9/11 Review Commission’s finding is false, unsupported by credible evidence, and intended to discredit truthful facts that were accurately reported in the April 16, 2002 FBI report.” Notably, the Review Commission does not address any of the other corroborating evidence cited by The Bulldog in its reporting.

FBI: if you don’t believe us, just ask us

.

There are also glaring problems with the makeup of the 9/11 Review Commission itself.

Not to be confused with the 2004 9/11 Commission Report which sought to understand the “intelligence failures” which led to the attacks — then make recommendations —  the recent 9/11 Review Commission’s ostensible purpose was to perform an “external review” of how well the FBI implemented those recommendations. It was also tasked with assessing any new evidence which has surfaced since — including the evidence publicized by The Bulldog.

It turns out the Review Commission was not really “external” at all. The Commissioners were in actuality “guided by the FBI” and they “relied heavily for information on the Bureau,” according to Christensen.

Originally envisioned as an independent body with the power to investigate and hold public hearings, a commission in that form couldn’t get enough support in Congress. Instead, a sort of FBI self-investigation arrangement was ultimately tucked into a large appropriations bill — any “mention of public hearings, subpoena power and legislative control had been removed,” Christensen reported.

Even worse for any semblance of independence, FBI Director James Comey essentially hand picked the commission’s three members — former Attorney General Ed Meese, former 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman — all of whom were paid by the Bureau itself making them “de facto FBI employees,” as Christensen points out.

So, what does it all mean?

“We suspect that if the records are produced they will show that the 9/11 Review Commission did not have a valid basis to attack the accuracy of the April 16, 2002, FBI report,” The Bulldog’s attorney told WhoWhatWhy via e-mail.

The big question of course is: Why would the FBI discredit its own internal report, then completely ignore any and all corroborating evidence documented by The Bulldog’s reporting?

Could it have anything to do with the “28 pages” which, we are told, document Saudi funding of the 9/11 hijackers? Is it possible the Sarasota connection contradicts what’s in those 28 pages and needs to be written out of the script?

Notably, Tim Roemer, former 9/11 Commission member and member of the 2015 Review Commission recently came out in support of releasing the 28 pages. However, according to CNN, he “pushed back on Saudi royal involvement in the attacks,” during a congressional hearing this past May.

“In the 9/11 report, we did not discover high-level” involvement of any Saudis, he told hearing members.

Is the 9/11 Review Commission’s deeming the Sarasota connection “unsubstantiated” just another attempt at shutting the door on “high-level” Saudi involvement?


Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Mohamed Atta (Florida DMV / Wikimedia) and FBI seal

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

16 responses to “FBI Disparages Its Own 9/11 Report”

  1. sorgfelt says:

    The 28 pages are simply another phase of an attempt to cover up the truth, unless you are saying that Saudis planted the explosives in the WTC.

  2. Hugh Mayle says:

    The most a “terrorist leader” can expect from a successful terrorist attack is a few high fives from his terrorist buddies.
    The people supposedly fighting terrorism get billions of dollars and a
    blind eye turned towards whatever they do in the name of fighting
    terrorism.
    From that, it’s pretty obvious who has the greater motivation for terrorism.

  3. dirkbill says:

    I recall Daniel Hopsicker talking about this at least 10 years ago but I am glad someone is still pushing.

  4. Calis Sims says:

    The biggest red flag for me was, right after the Pentagon was hit, seeing Rumsfeld running around helping to carry stretchers with injured people. I thought, “He’s the Secretary of Defense and we’ve just been attacked and he’s carrying stretchers in front the camera? Shouldn’t he be somewhere?

  5. bill mcwilliams says:

    hard to believe that any enlightened writer still promotes the notion that there were “Saudi hijackers” on 9/11.

  6. Frank Daddario says:

    It is really very simple – America is addicted to crude oil.

    Whoever the “dealer” is at the source is who we protect – a shah, a sheikh, a shill, a sultan, a sunni, a shiite, and even a Wahhabi terrorist.

    Whitey Bulger did as much damage as ISIS, and Bulger was protected by the F B I for thirty or forty years, so you think American lives lost in tragic circumstances is going to change anything ?

    I’m not as deep into “conspiracy” but there is a bigger picture for certain.

  7. (Comment by reader @RealTomSongs) Hey Mr. Comey @FBI You are having one hell of a run with America. I am so disappointed to witness your moral decline

  8. When will the people realize that the only reason that there’s articles like this, is so they can continue to drop the ‘big lie’ that mid-east hijackers with box cutters were responsible for 9/11. I knew on the morning when it unfolded, especially after the Pentagon coverage of a plane hitting, that it was a inside job and that Bush and Cheney were at the helm. 15 years later we still hear the b**ls**t lies. I mean look at the photo above for this article. These are the kind of people that run the show with strings attached to their hands and feet, and brainwashed, bought drivel coming out of their mouths. It makes me sick to see how zero has changed since JFK was murdered by the powers that control the top of the hill. America is a cancer on the earth!

  9. suz33 says:

    Doesn’t matter what country anyone says any “hijackers” come from, fact remains, it couldn’t have happened without involvement from highly placed officials inside the USA.

  10. Al Murphy says:

    World Trade Center 7 fire didn’t cause more 7 or more consecutive floors disappear in an instant – freefall. And a Boeing 757 doesn’t disappear into a small hole in the Pentagon!

  11. James says:

    “We suspect that if the records are produced they will show that the 9/11 Review Commission did not have a valid basis to attack the accuracy of the April 16, 2002, FBI report,” The Bulldog’s attorney told WhoWhatWhy”

    This does seem at least possible

    “Could it have anything to do with the ’28 pages'”

    Yes yes yes, as Bob Graham keeps bringing them up together and so it’s natural to assume there might be some sort of tie-in.

  12. Shawn5676 says:

    The entire event needs an independent reinvestigation -debunk the lies and liars. The official account is horse**** – anyone with common sense can see that.

  13. kay rundle says:

    This government will do nearly anything to keep secret the facts about 9/11. Recently, there has been increased awareness among US citizens, as well as those of many other countries. That awareness is putting pressure on the various agencies to support the “official” version of 9/11. It won’t hold. When I stood before a giant TV screen that morning in a small restuarant in a very small town (one intersection), I knew immediately what had really happened. I don’t quite know how I knew — perhaps decades of dealing with government, law, etc.– but I also knew, and I knew that I personally would be very unlikely able to do anything about it, I did something I rarely do: I prayed the following prayer:

    ‘Jesus, please, reveal the whole truth and nothing but the truth so clear that no one can refute it. Please.’

    I didn’t specify anything, just the truth and all of it. I knew that would be enough.

    For years I have followed the events, reports, analyses, controversies of 9/11. I truly believe that eventually it will all come out and when it does — and it is irrefutable — governments will fall. I further believe that the infamous “they” know this also; there will be no volunteering of real facts by this government, its agencies, stooges, and puppets.

    To all media: “Hang in there, keep at them! The cynics cry “might makes right”, but I have now lived more than seven decades on this earth, and I have seen it the other way about: “right makes might” They know it, too.

    • oatwillie says:

      I’ve always thought it strange that no heads rolled as a result of the investigation of 9-11.