There’s New Information About The CIA’s Involvement With Two 9/11 Terrorists
On August 17, Vivek Ramaswamy was interviewed by Tucker Carlson. At the very beginning, Ramaswamy spoke candidly about 9/11: “I didn’t suggest it. I explicitly said that the government absolutely lied to us. The 9/11 Commission lied. The FBI lied to us.”
After dropping that bombshell, Ramaswamy went on to describe a scenario that he says “doesn’t make much sense on the face of it.” He explained how a 42-year-old Saudi Arabian graduate student went to Los Angeles International Airport and, while there, met up with two Saudi nationals who went on to hijack a plane on 9/11, which they then crashed into the Pentagon.
The graduate student claimed the encounter happened “randomly,” after which he “takes them to his house, spends lots of time with them [and] integrates them into them into the community.” On 9/11, the two young terrorists killed themselves and everyone else on board a commercial jet they hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon.
Ep. 17 Vivek Ramaswamy is the youngest Republican presidential candidate ever. He's worth listening to. pic.twitter.com/9wGqptHdto— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 17, 2023
If your interest is piqued by what Vivek had to say, here’s the rest of the story.
The Saudi man who “randomly” encountered the two young terrorists is al-Bayoumi, and it turns out that he was working with Saudi intelligence. Nevertheless, neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commission found anything suspicious about this “random” encounter or the prolonged contact between al-Bayoumi and the two young terrorists. We learned about this only because, after 20 years, the FBI declassified a tranche of 9/11 files.
The “random” airport encounter happened in January 2000. The terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, arrived in the U.S. after attending an al-Qaeda terrorist summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, earlier that month. While in Kuala Lumpur, they were under CIA surveillance, and the CIA tracked them as they entered the U.S.
Public domain images.
Once they were in the U.S., the CIA continued to track the two men. In fact, the CIA had set up a unit named Alec Station, to track Al Qaeda and its chief, Osama bin Laden. However, the CIA did not inform the FBI that two terrorists had entered the U.S.
Ramaswamy mentions that the public was made aware of the “random” January 2000 encounter because of declassified FBI documents. However, a second source of information has also surfaced.
This second source is a 21-page document prepared by Don Canestraro, a former high-ranking DEA agent, that was filed in 2021 at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, where the cases of the 9/11 defendants are (still!!) being heard. It was on the public docket but went unreported because it was almost completely redacted. However, the complete and unredacted version of Canestraro’s document is now posted on Wikisource.
In his court filing, Canestraro interviewed almost two dozen high-ranking intelligence agents. One witness who attended a high-level post-9/11 meeting with senior FBI and CIA officials said he overheard the CIA Director of Operations telling CIA Director George Tenet that he was glad that they had kept a CIA analyst who worked in Alec Station away from 9/11 investigators. Tenet agreed that keeping the CIA agent away from the 9/11 Commission was a “good idea.”
Canestraro also interviewed Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council in 2001 and whose job was to coordinate all intelligence related to terrorism and facilitate the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Clarke told Canestraro that the 9/11 Commission did not thoroughly investigate the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks. Why not?
It turns out that the answer to this question may not be so simple. One scenario is that Saudi intelligence was involved in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks. In fact, family members of 9/11 victims are suing Saudi Arabia to hold them accountable for their role in facilitating the deadly attacks. But another possibility is that Al-Bayoumi, working in conjunction with Saudi intelligence, was trying to recruit the two terrorists to infiltrate Al Qaeda on the CIA’s behalf.
Clarke said he believed the CIA was running an operation on American soil trying to recruit the hijackers and use them to infiltrate Al-Qaeda. According to Clarke, the operation would have involved Al-Bayoumi befriending the two hijackers by attempting to convince them that he was sympathetic to their cause. At the same time, Al-Bayoumi would have been reporting on the hijacker’s activities to Saudi intelligence, which would, in turn, have relayed it to the CIA.
AL Qaeda is filled with radical, firebrand Islamic terrorists who not only have no compunction about murdering helpless civilians but who also seem quite willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their religiously inspired blood-lust. One can understand the need to infiltrate it with informants if that’s even possible.
Clarke is not the only one who claimed that the CIA had attempted to recruit the newly arrived terrorists. Another witness designated only as CS-23 made a similar claim. Canestraro wrote:
CS-23 told me that the attempt to recruit Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar was an operation directed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
CS-23 told me that the CIA used their liaison relationship with the Saudi intelligence services to conduct an operation on U.S. soil.
CS-23 told me that the Saudis were used as a go between as the CIA is forbidden by law to conduct intelligence operations within the U.S.
But Clarke went further, stating that he believed most of the records of the CIA’s operation to penetrate Al-Qaeda through Al-Bayoumi were destroyed to cover up the operation.
What this means is that the CIA was using foreign agencies to conduct operations in the United States because it is forbidden by its charter to conduct operations on American soil. What the CIA was alleged to have done may not have violated the letter of the law, but it certainly seems to have violated its spirit.
Nonetheless, according to CS-23, the CIA’s practice of using allied intelligence services as cut-outs had occurred in the past. Wrote Canestraro,
CS-23 told me that the CIA has used its relationship with allied intelligence services to conduct operations inside the United States in the past.
Then there is this aspect: As mentioned, the CIA never informed the FBI about the two known al-Qaeda terrorists’ arrival in the United States. The obvious reason for this silence was that the CIA was running an illegal operation in the U.S. Another witness told Canestraro that it was only in June 2001 that the CIA finally informed the FBI that the two terrorists were in the country, but that was because the CIA lost track of them and needed FBI assistance to find them.
So, what happened when the FBI eventually learned of the CIA’s underhanded operation to recruit Al-Qaeda terrorists, right here in America, as intelligence assets and, possibly, to use them to infiltrate Al-Qaeda? According to Canestraro, CS-23 told him that senior FBI officials suppressed investigations into the matter:
CS-23 claimed that FBI agents testifying before the Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks were instructed not to reveal the full extent of Saudi involvement with Al-Qaeda.
By this account, Saudi Arabia was indeed involved with 9/11 terrorists, but not in a sinister way. Instead, it was working with the CIA to attempt to recruit at least two of the terrorists to spy on Al-Qaeda. Or was it in a sinister capacity? Was Saudi intelligence taking advantage of the CIA by pretending to be working with them? Is this why all this pertinent information never made it to the 9/11 Commission? And will we Americans ever learn the truth about the single largest terrorist attack on American soil?
This article has been updated to correct typos regarding the years in which events occurred.