Saudi govt may have funded ‘dry run’ for 9/11

Fresh evidence alleges Saudi embassy in Washington paid for two suspects who participated in conspiracy

News Desk September 11, 2017
The Tribute in Light is illuminated next to the Statue of Liberty (centre) and One World Trade Centre (left) during events marking the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York, September 10, 2013. PHOTO: REUTERS / FILE

The Saudi government may have funded a “dry run” of the 9/11 attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people in 2001, fresh evidence submitted in a major lawsuit has revealed.

According to the New York Post, the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington might have used two of its employees for the so-called dry run before a dozen hijackers flew two planes into the Twin Towers.

“The Saudi embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

FBI releases unseen photos of 9/11 attacks 16 years later

The plaintiffs lawyers say the court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources. “We’ve long asserted that there were longstanding and close relationships between al Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government,” said Sean Carter, the lead attorney for the 9/11 plaintiffs. “This is further evidence of that.”

Citing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents, the complaint alleges that the Saudi students — Muhammed al Qudhaeein and Hamdan al Shalawi — were in fact members of “the Kingdom’s network of agents in the US,” and participated in the terrorist conspiracy.

The Saudi government has long denied any links to the terrorists and lawyers representing the government have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which may finally be headed toward trial now that Congress has cleared diplomatic-immunity hurdles. The plaintiffs must respond to the motion by November.

9/11 widow files lawsuit against Saudi Arabia

According to the FBI documents, Qudhaeein and Shalawi trained in Afghanistan with a number of other al Qaeda operatives who participated in the attacks. Both worked for and received money from the Saudi government and were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.

The FBI also confirmed that the pair’s airline tickets for the pre-9/11 dry run were paid for by the Saudi embassy. “The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government,” said Kristen Breitweiser, one of the New York plaintiffs, whose husband perished at the World Trade Center. “These guys were Saudi government employees for years and were paid by the Saudi government,” she added. “In fact, the Saudi Embassy paid for their plane tickets for the dry run.”


Faisal | 6 years ago | Reply bull.......many Saudis can hardly drive a car properly even though they have excellent roads and highways! and so anyone who thinks that a bunch of Saudis who hardly trained or passed tests on small propeller plane flights and with just a few weeks of training where most of them failed miserably as per their American instructors who were eventually asked to now stay quiet about their students...., and then these same guys managed to pilot giant commercial airliners travelling at 800 km/h in the world's most restrictive airspace and through skies full of sky scrapers are in denial. There is more than meets they eye here just like with the Kennedy assassination. World has to wait another 50 years before the Americans de-classify intelligence files and truth comes out! Incidentally the first ever recorded evidence of using commercial plans as missiles is with the CIA in the 1960s - files declassified recently show how CIA proposed this way back in the 1960s to reach their objectives!
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ